Search

This report was prepared by the Chairman's Staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee setting forth the findings of an investigation into marketing practices in the Federal Family Education Loan program ("FFEL"). Evidence uncovered by the Chairman's investigation demonstrates that many FFEL lenders routinely engage in marketing practices that violate the letter and spirit of the inducement prohibition of the Higher Education Act. Given the breadth of the evidence presented in this report it is clear that the problem is systemic and cannot be isolated to a few "problem" lenders or schools. The report addresses a discrete set of marketing practices including: (1) Some FFEL lenders provided compensation to schools with the expectation, and in some cases an explicit agreement, that the school will give the lenders preferential treatment, including placement on the school's preferred lender list; (2) Other FFEL lenders spent large sums on travel and accommodation expenses for meetings of Advisory Boards comprised of school officials, and often expected these benefits to yield increased loan volume, or other preferential treatment, at Board members' schools; (3) School officials held financial interests, including stock and options to purchase stock, in FFEL lenders which are on the preferred lender list or are otherwise recommended to students; and (4) School officials received payments for consulting and other services from FFEL lenders which are on the preferred lender list or are otherwise recommended to students. (Contains 52 notes and 118 exhibits.)

This hearing was convened to examine issues relating to higher education and corporate leaders, focusing on defining the roles industry and institutions of higher education will have to ensure that the United States has the skilled and diverse workforce it will need to succeed today and in the future. The Committee heard statements by: Michael B. Enzi, chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA); Patty Murray (D-WA); Johnny Isakson (R-GA); Louis Caldera, president, University of New Mexico; Edward Hoff, vice president, Learning for IBM; Patricia McGuire, president, Trinity University; James Mullen, president and CEO, Biogen; Edison O. Jackson, president, Medgar Evers College; Patrick Sweeney, president and CEO, Odin Technologies; Robert Craves, founder, Costco Corporation, currently CEO and president, Washington Education Foundation; Walter Nolte, president, Casper College; Charles Reed, chancellor, California State University; and Laura Palmer-Noone, president, University of Phoenix.

The Committee convened a hearing to examine access and accountability relating to providing quality postsecondary education, focusing on the federal government's role in making postsecondary education financially available for Americans. Statements were presented by: Michael B. Enzi, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT); Lamar Alexander (R-TN); Kati Haycock, director, Education Trust; Trinity Thorpe, student, Pepperdine University; Brian Bothworth, president, FutureWorks; Robert M. Shireman, director, the Institute for College Access & Success, Inc.; and Phillip F. Van Horn, chairman of the board and president, Wyoming Student Loan Corporation, and president and CEO, Western States Learning Corporation. Additional material consisted of: Response to questions of Senator Enzi by Kati Haycock; Response to questions of Senator Enzi by Trinity Thorpe; Response to questions of Senator Enzi by Brian Bosworth; Response to questions of Senator Enzi and Senator Murray by Robert Shireman; and Response to questions of Senator Enzi by Phillip F. Van Horn.

The purpose of these hearings was to explore the problems that unaccredited, substandard colleges and universities, often referred to as diploma mills, pose to the Federal Government and to private-sector employers. The schools examined during these hearings practice a sophisticated form of deception and they charge students accordingly. All of the schools we investigated gave credit for prior work or life experience, even for advanced degrees, which is very rare among accredited institutions. One institution's list of life experiences that could qualify for academic credit included horseback riding, playing golf, pressing flowers, serving on a jury, and planning a trip. The schools examined also required their students to do some modicum of work, either tests or papers or both, and they at least give the impression that the school includes professors with suitable academic credentials who actually play a role in the school's academic programs. The danger of these more sophisticated diploma mills is that they can attract a far broader range of students. The schools investigated take pains to try to convince prospective students that they are legitimate and that students have to earn their degrees. That is why a healthy dose of credit for work and life experience becomes such a critical component of their business model. That is what permits these more sophisticated diploma mills to assume an air of legitimacy while minimizing the actual amount of work required. During the two days of these hearings, the focus was on the challenges posed by diploma mills to the Federal Government. Opening statements at the hearings were provided by: Senators Collins; Akaka; Lautenberg; Carper; Durbin; Lieberman; and Pryor. Witnesses provided testimonies and prepared statements on both days of the hearings. An appendix presents: (1) memorandum dated April 15, 2004; and (2) questions and responses for the record from various participants. (Contains 31 exhibits.)

The Subcommittee conducted an oversight hearing on Section 529 College Savings Plans, State-sponsored investments that are designed to encourage families to save money for their children's college education. Section 529 refers to the Internal Revenue Code section that authorizes and confers special tax treatment on these entities. Section 529 College Savings Plans are instrumentalities of the various State Governments. The States usually organize the plans as trusts which, in turn, typically invest the plan assets in mutual funds managed by third party asset managers. This oversight hearing built on two previous hearings in which this Subcommittee examined mutual fund management and governance, mutual fund fees, and the adequacy of fee disclosures. Testimony was presented by: Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL); Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ); Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR); Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii); Steven T. Miller, Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Internal Revenue Service; Mary L. Schapiro, Vice Chairman and President, Regulatory Policy and Oversight, NASD; Ernesto A. Lanza, Senior Associate General Counsel, Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Michael A. Ablowich, Treasurer, State of New Hampshire, on behalf of the National Association of State Treasurers; Jacqueline T. Williams, Executive Director, College Advantage Savings Plan, Ohio Tuition Trust Authority, on behalf of the College Savings Plan Network; Martin M. Noven, Deputy Chief of Staff, on behalf of Judy Baar Topinka, State Treasurer, State of Illinois; Richard O. Davis, Deputy Executive Director for Finance and Administration, Utah Higher Education Assistance Authority; Daniel McNeela, CFA, Senior Analyst, Morningstar, Inc.; and Mercer E. Bullard, President and Founder, Fund Democracy, Inc. Appendices includes a chart entitled "Value of a $10,000 investment after 10 years"; a chart entitled "Value of a $10,000 investment after 18 years"; a chart entitled "Growth in Section 529 Plans 1996-2004"; The "529 Plan Information" chart from the Morningstar website; Barbara Hafer, Treasurer, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prepared statement with an attachment; Tim Berry, Indiana State Treasurer and NAST President, National Association of State Treasurers; and Questions and Responses to Senator Lautenberg from Mr. Miller, Mr. Lanza, Ms. Schapiro, Mr. McNeela, and Mr. Bullard.

A hearing was held to explore the problem of binge drinking on campus and to consider possible responses to this problem. Following an opening statement by Senator Joseph Lieberman, a panel of witness who have done research and work in the field gave testimony. These witnesses commented on the problem of binge drinking: (1) Raynard S. Kingston, Acting Director, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health; (2) Ralph W. Hingson, Professor and Associate Dean for Research, Boston University School of Public Health; and (3) Mark S. Goldman, Director, Alcohol and Substance Abuse Research Institute, University of South Florida. A second panel of witnesses spoke of real-life impacts of binge drinking. They included: (1) Daniel P. Reardon, parent of a student who died of alcohol poisoning; (2) John D. Welty, President, California State University, Fresno; (3) Robert F. Nolan, Chief of Police, Hamden, Connecticut; and (4) Drew Hunter, Executive Director, the BACCHUS and GAMMA Peer Education Network. An appendix contains some prepared statements from C.D. Mote, Jr., president of the University of Maryland and Catherine Bach, program director of Security on Campus. Prepared statements of the witnesses are also included. (SLD)

A Senate committee hearing received testimony to showcase Native American program initiatives at the college and university level. Program representatives presented information on the characteristics and accomplishments of their programs. The Institute of Tribal Government at Portland State University (Oregon) provides intensive 3-day training programs designed specifically for elected tribal officials and is planning a Tribal Leadership Archive of tribal leaders' oral histories. The Harvard University Native American Program includes a predoctoral scholars program focused on Native issues, financial and social support for Native students, numerous Native Studies courses, research on real-world problems submitted by tribes, outreach to tribes, and nation building through inservice education for tribal leaders and professionals. The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development entails the comparative study of social and economic development on American Indian reservations and application of findings in service to tribes and tribal organizations. The Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy at the University of Arizona provides comprehensive professional training and development for tribal policymakers and managers. The University of Arizona also offers a Master of Laws program in Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy; faculty, courses, setting, and admissions criteria are described. The Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute at Evergreen State College (Washington) addresses Native community concerns. (SV)

At a hearing in Honolulu (Hawaii), the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations received testimony on health, education, and employment and training programs serving the Native people of Hawaii. In July 1999, a federal government brief filed in a U.S. Supreme Court case established the official legal position of the United States that Native Hawaiians have the same status as other Native people of the United States and that there is a federal trust responsibility for Native Hawaiians. Testimony from state-level administrators outlined the current status of health, housing, education, and job training for Native Hawaiians and proposed recommendations for pending federal legislation: the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Amendments of 1999, the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act, and the Native Hawaiian Education Act. Other testimony described Native Hawaiian health care systems, the Native Hawaiian heart health initiative, the Native Hawaiian Cancer Awareness Research and Training Center, the Hawaii high schools health study, the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program, the practice of naturopathic medicine with Native Hawaiians, the Native Hawaiian Higher Education Program and its outcomes and impacts, programs focused on Hawaiian language and cultural maintenance, family-based early childhood education programs, the Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence (to improve the health of indigenous Hawaiians), comprehensive school-based services, and the Native Hawaiian Special Education Project. (SV)

This transcript records testimony concerning Senate Bill 2490 which would bar federal aid from being used at colleges that directly or indirectly discriminate against off-campus businesses. The bill responds to difficulties small businesses have in competing with college campus bookstores due to the ability of colleges to channel student financial aid to college businesses and college bookstores. Following opening statements by Senators Lauch Faircloth and Olympia J. Snowe, the transcript presents the full testimonies of the following individuals: Graham Gillette, on behalf of Campus Bookstores, Inc.; William D. Gray, president of Gray's College Bookstore and national chairman of the Campus Area Small Business Alliance; Rob Karr, representing the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, and Anthony Samu, president of the United States Student Association. Also included are comments for the record from: John-Paul de Bernardo, of Campus Area Small Business Alliance; Daniel Lieberman, of Dynamic Student Services; David Longanecker, of the Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education; and Richard C. Yount, Loupots Bookstores of Houston, Inc. (DB)

This compilation of Federal Education Laws pertaining to higher education presents the full text of each statute. Statutes are organized in four sections: (1) general higher education programs; (2) Native American higher education; (3) National Science Foundation; and (4) assistance to specified institutions. The following is a unified listing of the statutes included: Act of March 2, 1867 (Howard University); Bankhead-Jones Act; Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation; Claiborne Pell Institute for International Relations and Public Policy Act; Edmund S. Muskie Foundation; Education Amendments of 1972, Land-Grant Status for the College of the Virgin Islands and the University of Guam; Education Amendments of 1980, Title XIII, Parts G and I; Education Amendments of 1980, Title XIII, Part H (Miscellaneous Provisions); First Morrill Act; George Bush School of Government and Public Service Act; Grants to Eisenhower College and to Samuel Rayburn Library; Harry S. Truman Memorial Scholarship Act; Herbert Hoover Memorial; Higher Education Act of 1965; Higher Education Amendments of 1968; Higher Education Amendments of 1986; Higher Education Amendments of 1992--Title IV, V, and XV; Higher Education Amendments of 1992--Title XIII; Higher Education Amendments of 1998; Howard University Endowment Act; Human Rights, Refugee, and Other Foreign Relations Provisions Act of 1996; Human Services Reauthorization Act, Title V; Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992; National Science Foundation Act of 1950; Navajo Community College Act; Public Law 98-480, Title III (Higher Education Projects); Public Law 98-558, Title V (Higher Education and Research Project); Second Morrill Act; and Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978. (RH)

A joint report by members of two Congressional Committees examined the proposed bill to carry out the National Sea Grant College Program Act and recommended that the bill be passed. The Sea Grant College Program Act authorizes appropriations for the National Sea Grant Program, which provides grants to support university-based marine research, education, and advisory services, and repeals the Strategic Marine Research Program. The committees supported a 5-year reauthorization at levels that would permit the continuation of the existing network without reduction. The committees reviewed the legislative history of this reauthorization and authorized levels of funding for 5 years with cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. An examination of the regulatory impact of the bill found that as the bill reauthorizes an existing program, no additional regulatory, economic, paperwork, or personal privacy burdens would be imposed on individuals or businesses. However, because the Strategic Marine Research Program component of the National Sea Grant Program duplicated another program, it was repealed. The report analyzes the bill section by section and indicates changes and omissions from the original bill. (JB)

The Committee on Labor and Human Resources examined the need for more qualified teachers in America's classrooms. Senators Bingaman and Jeffords made opening statements regarding the importance of the issue, then Margot Schenet, a specialist in social legislation with the Congressional Research Service, discussed the need for program quality in postsecondary schools and the role of the federal government. Her statement addressed institutional eligibility for student aid under the Higher Education Act. Statements from Kati Haycock, Director of the Education Trust; Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President of the American Council on Education; Arthur Wise, President of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education; and Donald Warren, Dean, School of Education, Indiana University followed. They addressed the importance of teacher quality and competency in providing optimal education to diverse students. An opening statement by Senator DeWine discussed the crisis in teacher education in the U.S., examining NCATE accreditation. Statements from Thomas Payzant, Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools, and Nancy Grasmick, State Superintendent of the Maryland State Department of Education, follow. Payzant discussed the type of training teachers need to succeed in Boston's public schools. Grasmick discussed teacher education initiatives and reforms in Maryland. Prepared statements by Senators Bill Frist and Edward Kennedy supported the statements of the previous speakers. A prepared statement of the National Education Association made recommendations for achieving the goal of improved educational quality. (SM)

These hearings addressed three measures introduced to the Senate: the Excellence in Teaching Act, S. 1675; the National Teacher Act of 1989, S. 1676; and the Teacher's Professional Development Act, S. 498. The key provisions of the bills focus on: (1) addressing the teacher shortage through a revitalized Teacher Corps Program providing scholarships to college and graduate students who agree to teach for 5 years after graduation; (2) placing special emphasis on training teachers in areas of urgent need, such as math, science, bilingual education, special education, and early childhood education; (3) encouraging minority recruitment through magnet schools, residential summer institutes for disadvantaged high school students, education programs at historically black colleges and universities, and improved coordination between two- and four-year institutions; and (4) providing inservice training through professional development academies and offering a range of incentives for teachers to continue in the profession. (JD)

This document presents the transcript of a congressional hearing held before a Senate subcommittee concerning reporting requirements of the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act of 1990. Among issues addressed is whether the definition of "campus" includes buildings used partially or completely for commercial purposes, sidewalks, and hospitals, and whether hate crimes should be included in reporting requirements. Emphasis is on a current case involving the University of Pennsylvania. Following an opening statement by Senator Arlen Specter, the report includes the texts of oral statements and prepared statements by the following individuals or organizations: Howard Clery, founder of Security on Campus, Inc.; Jacob McKee, a student; Barbara Prentice, a parent; Stanley Ikenberry, president of the American Council on Education; Michele Goldfarb, administrator at the University of Pennsylvania; Peter C. Erichsen, vice president and general counsel at the University of Pennsylvania; Dolores A. Stafford, director of the university police department at George Washington University (District of Columbia); the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators; David A. Longanecker, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education; and Robert C. Torricelli, U.S. Senator. (DB)

A Senate committee met to discuss the appropriate preparation of teachers for schools of the future. Senator James M. Jeffords from Vermont presented an opening statement and discussed the need for high quality, competent teachers. Senator DeWine's opening statement discussed how education has changed over the years and what it still needs to improve. The two panels of experts and witnesses presented their opinions, experiences, and expertise on the subject of teacher education, teacher certification, and teaching. The first panel included: the President of Moyerson Academy (Larry Rowedder); the Superintendent of Toledo Public Schools (Merrill Grant); an associate professor from Central State University (Mary B. Howard); and the Former Dean of Education for Central State University (Edward Wingard). The second panel included: the 1997 National Teacher of the Year at Mayerson Academy (Sharon Draper); the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Cincinnati (Arlene Mitchell); the Assistant Superintendent and Co-Director of the Far East Regional Professional Development Center (Anna Marie Vaughn); the Professor of Education, chair-elect of the School of Education at the University of Rio Grande (Chormaine Lepley); and an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Cleveland State University (David Ball). An appendix provides the prepared statements of several individuals interested in improving education and teacher education (teachers, administrators, and university professors). (SM)

This 10th and final hearing in a series related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, focused on three specific areas: (1) the challenges posed by demographic changes in the college student population--nearly half of all students attend community colleges where the average age of students is 29; (2) the challenges and opportunities posed by technology, including distance learning and underserved communities; and (3) lifelong learning and nontraditional students. Testimony and prepared statements were submitted by: Senators James Jeffords, Edward Kennedy, Wayne Allard, and Christopher Dodd; and by Donald Stewart of the College Board (Washington, D.C.); Joel Harrell, University of Tennessee; Bryan Hannegan, National Association of Graduate-Professional Students (Wilmette, Illinois); Stanley Ikenberry, American Council on Education (Washington, D.C.); Philip Day, Daytona Beach (Florida) Community College; Omer Waddles, Career College Association (Washington, D.C.); and Deborah Dunn, Yorktowne Business Institute (York, Pennsylvania). Testimony covered such topics as: college costs and affordability, access and student aid, graduate education, the grant/loan imbalance, managing student debt, federal student loan programs, and the Kid's Bank amendment. (CH)

This hearing, the ninth in a series discussing issues related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, focuses on three programs: Aid for Institutional Development, or Title III; the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership Program; and the TRIO programs, which provide support services and scholarships for students, as well as institutional aid to colleges and universities and are intended to assist low-income, first-generation college students. The following witnesses made statements: (1) Moses Griffin, Wilberforce University (Ohio), who suggested that common evaluation criteria are inadequate for judging program effectiveness at historically black colleges and universities; (2) R. Vic Morgan, Sul Ross State University (Texas); who discussed the role of Title III at Hispanic-serving institutions; (3) Linda Shiller, speaking on behalf of the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership Program, who discussed the programs of the Vermont Student Assistance Program; and (4) Ann Coles, who spoke on behalf of the National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations, and noted that over 2 million TRIO program participants had graduated from colleges over the past 30 years. Additional materials from the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities are appended. (CH)

This seventh hearing in a series related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act focused on the management structure of the Office of Postsecondary Education and the financial aid delivery system. In the opening statement, Chairman James M. Jeffords reported that the current system is outdated and inefficient and indicated that the committee was considering proposals for change that ranged from a performance-based system to privatizing student aid delivery. Testimony was given by David A. Longanecker and Betsy Hicks of the Department of Education who noted progress made in managing student financial aid programs and addressed changes still to come. Other witnesses included Brian Fitzgerald of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (Washington, D.C.); Cornelia M. Blanchette of the U.S. General Accounting Office; Judith Flink, University of Illinois; Barmak Nassirian, American Association of State Colleges and Universities (Washington, D.C.); and Barbara Tornow, Boston University (Massachusetts) who all testified on the inadequacy of the present financial aid delivery system and its management structure. The document also contains transcripts of oral discussions and prepared statements by Senators John Warner (Virginia) and Christopher Dodd (Connecticut). (CH)

This hearing on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, sought public comment in Maine on the cost of higher education and on Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Specifically, these hearings were intended to address the continuing low level of participation in higher education by Maine high school graduates, which was ascribed mainly to the fact that federal aid programs cover a smaller percentage of cost than they did 15 years ago. The hearing, chaired by Senator Susan M. Collins of Maine, heard statements from: Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont; Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, who planned to introduce a "Go to College" tax incentive act; Melissa Chasse, a student who gave examples of the various federal student aid programs that had enabled her to attend college James Peacock, certified school counselor; Mid-Maine Technical Center; Andrea Cross, director of financial aid, St. Joseph's College; institutional administrators and counselors from Maine colleges, who all noted repayment burdens faced by students; and education policymakers for the state of Maine, who noted the importance of federal student aid programs to students in the state. Walter Moulton, director of student aid at Bowdoin College, presented a prepared statement suggesting three changes to the bill which would: (1) provide an alternative to the Perkins Loan Program; (2) consolidate the Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) program; and (3) allow use of retirement assets to help meet educational expenses. (CH)

This hearing presents testimony on Medicare support for graduate medical education in light of Clinton Administration and other reform proposals to reduce the number of specialized residencies in teaching hospitals. The testimony includes opening statements by Senator William V. Roth, Jr., chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, and Senator Phil Gramm. Bruce Vladeck, administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration offered a statement as administration witness. Statements by public witnesses included those of: Robert Crittenden of the University of Washington School of Medicine; Don E. Detmer, on behalf of the Association of Academic Health Centers; Spencer Foreman, on behalf of the Greater New York Hospital Association of Academic Health; and Ralph W. Muller, on behalf of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Appended are prepared statements by the witnesses and communications regarding graduate medical education reform from the Alaska Family Practice Residency, American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, American Association of Dental Schools, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Hospital Association, National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, and National League for Nursing. (MDM)

This hearing report concerns possible antitrust and anticompetitive violations by the College Bowl Alliance consisting of the Southeastern Athletic Conference (SEC), the Big 12, the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), and the Big East, as well as Notre Dame University; and after 1998 will include PAC-10, Big 10, and the Rose Bowl. An agreement was made between the College Alliance and three Bowls: Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl. Under the terms of the agreement, each year a different Alliance bowl is allowed to choose first from among the pool of Alliance conference champions and at-large teams. The stated purpose of this arrangement is to provide a No. 1 versus No. 2 championship match-up every year in a different bowl game. Excluded non-Alliance teams have raised issues involving the selection methods, the consequent disparity in television revenues, and related effects such as the inability to recruit top athletes by non-Alliance teams. Witnesses were grouped into two panels each consisting of individuals for or against the Alliance. Testifying against the Alliance included Senators Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), Robert Bennett (Utah), Craig Thomas (Wyoming), and Michael Enzi (Wyoming); as well as Karl Benson, commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference, and Ron Cooper, former head football coach, University of Louisville, Kentucky. Those testifying in favor of the College Bowl Alliance include Wally Richardson, a graduate of Penn State University, Roy F. Kramer, commissioner of the SEC, James E. Delaney, commissioner of the Big Ten Conference, and Cedric W. Dempsey, executive director of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). An appendix includes the transcript of a question-and-answer session between committee members and various witnesses. (BF)

This document contains proceedings of Senate hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations on H.R. 2127, an act making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and other related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. The document contains testimonies, answers to committee questions, and prepared statements from: Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor; Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services; Richard Riley, Secretary of Education; Harold Varmus, Director of the National Institutes of Health; and representatives from other federal agencies. Secretary Riley's testimony includes comments on proposed revisions from Department of Education Programs, the streamlining of Department services and functions, the features of the 1996 budget request, standards-based reform, and preparing students to work in the Information Age. A subject index and list of witnesses, communications, and prepared statements are included. (LMI)

The Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space held a hearing in Billings, Montana, on rural America's access to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) and uses of NII in the provision of rural education and services. An Assistant Secretary of Commerce discussed the development of the Internet, problems in rural access to the Internet and other information technologies, a federal grant program that helps rural communities to gain such access, and the effects of deregulation on rural access. A researcher outlined the potential impact of technology on rural schools, including opportunities for new distance learning models, for new models of student learning, and for improving teacher development. A health services administrator described the Eastern Montana Telemedicine Network, which delivers specialist physician consultation through video conferencing, delivers mental health consultative services, offers continuing medical and higher education programming to rural communities, and provides community outreach and telebusiness opportunities to geographically isolated communities. The computer systems and telecommunications director at Salish Kootenai College discussed the problems of providing telecommunications technology to tribal colleges on American Indian reservations and related problems involving rural telephone cooperatives, inadequate telephone service, and obsolete laws governing the delivery of utility services. Representatives of communications companies discussed the potential role of NII in promoting rural development and delivering rural services, and the need for continued Congressional action to support telecommunications competition. (SV)

This document presents the texts of selected titles, sections, and amendments of federal laws dealing with specific aspects of postsecondary education. It is divided into the following major parts: (1) "General Higher Education Programs"; (2) "Native American Higher Education"; (3) "National Science Foundation"; and (4) "Assistance to Specified Institutions." Selected titles and subsections include those from the Higher Education Act of 1965; the Higher Education Amendments of 1968, 1980, 1986, and 1992; the Morrill Acts; the Bankhead-Jones Act; the Harry S. Truman Memorial Scholarship Act; the Navajo Community College Act, the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978; the National Science Foundation Act of 1950; and acts that aid Howard University (Washington, D.C.), the Herbert Hoover Memorial (California), Eisenhower College (New York) the Samuel Rayburn Library (Texas) and other institutions. Among the subjects addressed are institutional and student aid, teacher recruitment, international programs, academic facilities, graduate education, minority programs, and educational improvement in math, science and engineering. (JB)

The Subcommittee heard testimony from seven witnesses and statements from three senators on whether or not it is in the Federal Government's best interest to divest itself of the Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae), and the College Construction Loan Insurance Association (Connie Lee). Lawrence A. Hough of the Student Loan Marketing Association testified that Sallie Mae is poised to move away from government sponsorship, that it would remain committed to the Federal Family Education Loan Program, and that privatization plans must be designed carefully to assure approval by shareholders. Oliver R. Stockwell of Connie Lee testified that Connie Lee was ready and willing to convert to private status. Senator Dodd appeared and spoke in support of privatization. Leo Kornfeld of the Department of Education testified in support of privatizing Connie Lee and cautioned that the current marketplace needs, offset fees, and exit fees must be considered in any Sallie Mae privatization plan. Darcy Bradbury of the Department of the Treasury argued for privatization to reduce the debt that carries some perception of government support. Senator Claiborne Pell urged caution in privatization. A member of the Congressional Research Service, a representative of the Financial Guaranty Insurers, and a representative of First Boston Corporation also testified on privatization issues. Prepared statements of senators and witnesses are included. (JB)

This report provides information on the proposed Health Professions Education Consolidation and Reauthorization Act of 1995, which is designed to reauthorize and consolidate 44 different federal health professions training programs currently authorized under Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act. It also reauthorizes a variety of other public health service programs. Section 1 provides a summary of the bill, while section 2 outlines the background and need for the legislation. Section 3 describes the legislative history and committee action that affected the bill, while section 4 presents the views of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources in regard to the bill. Section 5 provides a cost estimate of the legislation, while section 6 contains a regulatory impact statement. Section 7 contains a section-by-section analysis of the bill, while section 8 provides additional views on the bill. Section 9 details the changes to existing law that the bill will enact. (MDM)

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs received testimony from American Indian youth about the problems confronting Indian young people on reservations and in urban areas and about their own personal experiences with such problems. Witnesses included college and high school students representing various youth councils and youth organizations at a conference of United National Indian Tribal Youth (UNITY). Statements were also received from senators and from representatives of philanthropic foundations that provide funding to Indian youth programs. Included in the testimony and written statements are the following topics: (1) the efforts of tribal youth councils to involve young people in educational and cultural activities and activities helpful to their communities; (2) high rates of alcohol abuse and unemployment among Native Americans; (3) the need for Native American students attending public schools to be taught about their languages, cultures, and history; (4) the need for an American Indian university providing a full range of graduate degrees; (5) the importance of strong cultural identity and spirituality in preventing social problems and individual despair; (6) community programs to fight alcohol and drug abuse; (7) the involvement of urban Indian youth in gang violence; (8) the importance of positive role models for Indian youth; (9) water rights and traditional natural resources; (10) teen pregnancy; (11) the national youth agenda developed by UNITY; (12) youth leadership development programs, such as Running Strong for American Indian Youth; (13) programs for Native American children and youth funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation; and (14) juvenile justice needs. (SV)

These hearing transcripts present testimony on the high risks and emerging fraud in several areas of the federal government, including the Student Loan Program of the Education Department (ED), the Multifamily Housing Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax return filing. Testimony was heard from concerned senators and government officials responsible for risk management and fraud in these departments and agencies. Current and possible solutions to risk management and fraud were discussed. Opening and/or prepared statements were given by: Senators John Glenn, Byron L. Dorgan, Jim Sasser, William S. Cohen, and William V. Roth, Jr. Testimony was heard from: (1) the special assistant to the comptroller general and the director of tax systems issues, General Accounting Office (GAO); (2) the commissioner, deputy commissioner, and other officials of the IRS; (3) the deputy secretary, inspector general, and other officials of ED; and (4) the inspector general, assistant inspector general for audit, and other officials of HUD. An appendix contains the prepared statements of several witnesses, along with written questions and answers from officials of GAO, ED, HUD, and the Department of Treasury. (MDM)

This report presents the text, background, and analysis of proposed amendments to the Indian Education Act of 1972. The amendments reauthorize the Indian Education Act, revise existing law to improve administration of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) education programs, and incorporate school reform legislation enacted in Goals 2000 (the Educate America Act). The Indian Education Act funds 185 BIA-operated or tribally operated schools and dormitories on 63 American Indian reservations; supplemental programs for Indian children in over 1,200 public school districts; and competitive grants to support planning, demonstration projects, fellowships and professional development for Indians, and agency administrative budgets. While reauthorizing formula grants for supplemental programs, the amendments specify minimums for program enrollment and funding; require applicants to provide a comprehensive plan covering objectives, coordination of funds, teacher training, student evaluation, and dissemination of assessment results to parents; and require the school district to assess Indian student needs. The amendments also reauthorize the six Indian Education Technical Assistance Centers, provide educational planning grants to tribal governments, provide for revision of BIA education standards to reflect community goals, authorize new funding for Indian and Alaska Native language instruction, address the enormous backlog of needs for school construction, and change criteria for investment of endowment funds of the tribally controlled community colleges. Includes a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate. (SV)

This report of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources recommends that appropriations be authorized for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) Historic Building Restoration and Preservation Act (H.R. 2921), as amended. The bill provides the authorization necessary to appropriate funds for structures located on the campuses of HBCUs that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places or that are designated a National Historic Landmark. The bill provides authorization for the use of $10 million for grants to 11 projects identified as the most historically significant and critically threatened structures and $5 million to Fisk University, to be funded through the Historic Preservation Fund. The report outlines the bill's legislative history, Committee recommendations and tabulation of votes, Committee amendments, a section-by-section analysis, cost and budgetary considerations, regulatory impact evaluation, and communications from the Department of the Interior. (JDD)

This hearing transcript presents testimony concerning minority participation and retention in higher education with emphasis on implications for student aid programs. Oral testimony or prepared statements were presented by Senators Paul Simon, Claiborne Pell, and Carol Mosely-Braun. Testimony was also offered by: (1) the president and three officials of the American Council on Education; (2) the associate director and two officials from the Education and Employment Issues section of the U.S. General Accounting Office; (3) the executive director of the National Council of Education Opportunity Associations; and (4) the presidents of Morgan State University, Norfolk State University, Nebraska Indian Community College, Hostos Community College, Chicago State University, and Spelman College. The testimony in general pointed to the low, and in some cases declining, rates of participation by Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities in higher education in the United States. Many witnesses decried the lack of minority graduate students and faculty to serve as role models. Much testimony was also critical of federal student aid initiatives, such as the Pell Grant program, for not providing enough money to needy students. (MDM)

The U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs heard testimony on the proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as it relates to American Indian education. ESEA incorporates virtually all major programs constituting federal aid to education; of particular concern to American Indians and Alaska Natives is the title called the Indian Education Act, as well as titles providing for the education of economically disadvantaged children, bilingual education, and impact aid. Statements were received from U.S. Senators, administrators of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the U.S. Department of Education, and representatives of regional and national Indian education associations. Topics and issues discussed included mechanisms for developing tribal and BIA standards consistent with Goals 2000 standards, BIA budget preparation procedures, teacher salaries in BIA schools, parent participation in goal setting, the formula for allocating impact aid to public school districts serving Indian children, state-tribal relationships, Native language preservation and cultural maintenance, the definition of "Indian," appointment and status of the Director of the Office of Indian Education in the U.S. Department of Education, need for additional funding to BIA schools due to increasing student enrollments, eligibility of BIA schools for Chapter I funds, inability of tribal school boards to fire long-term BIA "status quo" employees at local schools, and needs for school construction and maintenance. An appendix contains additional materials on these topics as well as program descriptions, funding formulas, and information on the need for Indian Technical Assistance Centers. (SV)

A Senate committee received testimony supporting reauthorization of the Native Hawaiian Education Act as part of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In the previous week, the House of Representatives had narrowly defeated an effort to delete the Native Hawaiian Education Act from ESEA reauthorization. The Native Hawaiian Education Act recounts the history of the U.S. invasion and illegal annexation of Hawaii, describes the basis of the federal government's trust responsibility toward Native Hawaiians, the educational needs of Native Hawaiian children, and authorizes supplemental educational programs to assist Native Hawaiians to reach the National Education Goals. These supplemental programs are Native Hawaiian Language Immersion Project; Native Hawaiian Family-Based Education Centers serving infants, preschoolers, and their families; Native Hawaiian Higher Education Demonstration Program; Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented Demonstration Program; and Native Hawaiian Special Education Program. Testimony by U.S. Senators and Representatives, school and college administrators, program directors, teachers, and parents describes the programs and provides evidence about the need for these programs and about program successes and accomplishments. Appended materials include the text of the Act and data on program enrollments and Native Hawaiian college enrollment. (SV)

The Senate Committee on Finance met to hear testimony on and discuss the preparation of medical doctors and how the Clinton Administration's proposed health care reform would influence medical education and the supply of health care professionals. Peter P. Budetti, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at George Washington University (Washington, D.C.), testified on how past federal policy has contributed to the rise of doctors training in specialties and subspecialties and has caused a decline in general practitioners. Jack M. Colwill, representing the Council on Graduate Medical Education, testified that the nation has too few generalists, has a surplus of specialists, and is moving toward a progressive physician surplus, which may impede the ability to move into systems of managed care and may contribute to escalating costs. Debra J. Folkerts, a family nurse practitioner from Kansas, testified on graduate nurse education and other health care reform efforts. Clayton E. Jensen, dean of the University of North Dakota School of Medicine, testified on how his institution has responded to North Dakota's health care service needs. The document also includes statements from Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Bob Packwood and a position statement from the American Academy of Family Physicians. (JB)

This document presents the texts of selected titles, sections, and amendments of federal laws dealing with specific aspects of postsecondary education. It is divided into the following major parts: (1) "General Higher Education Programs"; (2) "Native American Higher Education"; (3) "National Science Foundation"; (4) Mathematics, Science, and Engineering"; and (5) "Assistance to Specified Institutions." Selected titles and subsections include those from the Higher Education Act of 1965; the Higher Education Amendments of 1968, 1980, 1986, and 1992; the National Science Foundation Act of 1950; and the Excellence in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education Act of 1990. Among the subjects addressed are institutional and student financial assistance; educator recruitment, retention, and development; international education programs; academic facility improvement and construction; cooperative education; land-grant status for colleges in the United States, Virgin Islands, and Guam; postsecondary education legislation directed at American Indians; and educational improvements in the areas of mathematics and the sciences. (GLR)

The U.S. Senate held a hearing to address two issues facing the nation's armed service academies--honor systems and sexual harassment. This was the first of several oversight hearings to be held regarding the service academies. Two events prompted the Senate to hold these hearings: (1) a cheating scandal at the U.S. Naval Academy that began in 1992; and (2) the publication of a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report in 1994 entitled "DOD Service Academies: More Action Needed to Eliminate Sexual Harassment." The Hearing consisted of the presentations of three panels to the Subcommittee on Force Requirements and Personnel. The first panel, consisting of U.S. Ambassador Richard Armitage and Vice Admiral David M. Bennett, discussed the cheating scandal at the U.S. Naval Academy. The second panel, made up of GAO personnel, summarized the findings of their 1994 report on sexual harassment. The superintendents of the three service academies comprised the final panel. They discussed honor systems and sexual harassment at their institutions and the steps the academies had made to address these issues. The hearing document includes the presentations of all three panels as well as text from the GAO report and the "Report of the Honor Review Committee to the Secretary of the Navy On Honor at the United States Naval Academy." (CK)

Testimony on federal aid to higher education in Africa is recorded in this report of a congressional hearing. Subcommittee chairman Senator Paul Simon opened by describing his hope that more U.S. aid be directed to the relatively new but now deteriorating African institutions of higher education. John Hicks, from the Bureau for Africa at the Agency for International Development, testified on early efforts to assist Kenya and Uganda, past assistance in agricultural higher education, and current activities. Fred Hayward, of the American Council on Education, testified by comparing U.S. and African higher education. Frank Morris, Dean of Graduate Study and Research at Morgan State University (Maryland), testified about using indigenous experts, policies that encourage short-term solutions, and the untapped resources of the historically black colleges and universities in the U.S. Carl Schieren of the African American Institute testified on the role of African higher education in national development and the extreme challenges that hinder their efforts. Pearl Robinson of Tufts University (Massachusetts) testified on three programs of the African Academy of Sciences. Also included are prepared statements of all the witnesses and a record of the verbal testimony and questions that followed. (JB)

A Congressional hearing held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, received testimony on the Goals 2000: Educate America Act as it applies to American Indian education. The purpose of the hearing was to explore ways in which American Indians can participate as equal partners in the process of reaching national consensus on education reform, including the development of content and performance standards and an assessment mechanism. A representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) described how BIA schools are addressing the six national goals as well as two additional goals concerning Indian culture and language and school facilities. A representative of the Navajo Nation outlined the history and philosophy of Navajo education, described the six school systems serving Navajo students, and discussed Navajo educational goals and interest in reform, particularly the establishment of a "Department of T'aa Dine Education" to oversee Navajo education in a manner similar to a state department of education. Pueblo leaders and educators praised the national goals while pointing out how interpretation of the goals from an inappropriate perspective could be damaging to Indian students; discussed the danger of raising expectations without providing needed financial support; described needs for educational facilities and culturally sensitive teachers; and addressed the problem of culturally biased evaluation instruments driving the curriculum. (SV)

This report provides background on Senate Bill 1345 to establish land-grant status for 24 tribally controlled community colleges, 2 tribally controlled vocational colleges, 2 Bureau of Indian Affairs postsecondary institutions, and the Institute of American Indian Arts. Brief sections describe the history of the 73 existing land-grant institutions, the benefits of land-grant status, and the present status and enrollments of the 29 Indian institutions. This committee report amends the bill and recommends passage. The bill authorizes an endowment of $23 million for the 29 institutions; an annual appropriation of $50,000 for each institution to be used for instruction in food and agricultural sciences; an annual appropriation of $5 million for state land-grant colleges entering into cooperative agreements with the designated institutions for the delivery of extension services; and an appropriation of $1.7 million for 5 years for construction of research facilities. Dr. John Tippeconnic, Director of Office of Indian Education Programs, testified that the Bureau of Indian Affairs supports the bill and points out that Indian colleges serve the special needs of the rural Indian population in much the same way as land-grant colleges serve the rural population. (KS)

The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources reports favorably on the bill (S. 286) to extend and strengthen authorities of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) and to promote a number of education-improvement programs through fiscal year 1999. OERI is the research and development arm of the U.S. Department of Education. In spite of the importance of its duties, funding in terms of constant dollars has decreased approximately 80% since 1973. The proposed act seeks to reverse this trend by redefining the authorities, functions, and responsibilities of the office, and establishing five new research directorates. The bill also creates a nonpartisan Advisory Board of Educational Research to review research and evaluate its quality. An Office of Dissemination and Reform Assistance is established to provide national coordination, and regional education laboratories are established to advance the National Education Goals. In addition, S. 286 includes a minority focused civic education program for improved instruction in civics for minorities and Native Americans. This initiative also supports teacher education in civics. The Committee believes that this act will support educational research of the highest quality and will strengthen the flow of information and technical assistance to every student. (SLD)

Of the 54 million acres of Indian-owned lands held in trust by the United States, approximately 75 percent is used for agricultural production. Nevertheless, in 1993 over 1.1 million acres of Indian agricultural lands lay idle. The American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act seeks to establish a viable system for management and administration of Indian owned agricultural lands, enhance the production capabilities of Indian ranchers and farmers, affirm the authority of tribal governments in the management of Indian agricultural lands, and enhance educational opportunities for Indian students in the management of Indian natural resources. These two reports recommend passage of the act, and describe demographic and historical background for Indian agricultural programs; Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) agriculture programs and their staffing; educational and employment opportunities for Native students; and committee and tribal concerns about bureaucratic delays, civil trespass on Indian lands, leasing of Indian agricultural lands, and the rights of Indian landowners. Title II of the act creates: (1) 20 federally funded internship positions for American Indian and Alaska Native students enrolled full-time in an agricultural resources study program; (2) a cooperative education program with tribal colleges to recruit Native agricultural students for employment in federal agencies; (3) scholarships for Indians enrolled in accredited agriculture-related programs; (4) an agricultural resource education outreach program for Indian youth; and (5) federal employment for Indian graduates of tribal or BIA agriculture programs, possibly in exchange for assumption of student loans. Includes section-by-section analysis of the act and a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. (SV)

The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources met to consider an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve the delivery of college financial aid by moving from guaranteed students loans to direct loans. Under a system of direct loans, students would borrow directly from the Federal Government by applying through their colleges. Senators who offered opening statements on the proposed legislation were Senators Durenberger, Kassebaum, Pell, Jeffords, Metzenbaum, Hatch, Simon, Dodd, Coats, Wellstone, Gregg, Kennedy, Mikulski, and Thurmond. Proponents of the change noted increased access to loans, budget savings, and system simplification. Opponents cited the difficulty of change, the difficulty of knowing exactly the consequences of a new system, risks to the government, and costs of administration. The Committee also heard from a panel led by Madeleine Kunin, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Education presenting the Administration plan and answering questions on details of the plan. In addition a group of college presidents, university administrators, and students appeared to offer their views on proposed changes. Finally a large number higher education leaders of associations and financial aid groups appeared to offer their testimony on the legislation. Additional materials appended includes articles, publications, reports, and correspondence. (JB)

This document records the oral and written testimony at three hearings on proposed legislation that would amend the National Community Service Act of 1990 to establish a corporation for national service, enhance opportunities for such service, and provide awards for participants in the program. Witnesses included the following: U.S. senators; school teachers, administrators, and students; Clinton Administration officials, and representatives of labor organizations, volunteer programs, cities, and colleges. Many of the witnesses supported the idea of a national service corporation. Some witnesses related how volunteers were working in their communities and what a difference they made. They also explained how the various volunteer programs worked. Other witnesses were concerned that such a volunteer program would be too expensive, would grow too quickly and spawn increased government bureaucracy, and would be rife with waste and fraud. In addition, some witnesses felt that the program would compete for the same federal dollars now going to college students via Pell grants, which are not adequately funded now. (KC)

Testimony on the use of telecommunications technologies in education was given at this hearing. The focus was to examine how new and old technologies can be used to help schools and universities serve children more effectively and to extend the reach of educational institutions to rural and underserved communities. Although there is a great deal of technology in the marketplace, there is no coordinated effort at the national level to ascertain how it can be used most effectively considering limited financial resources. Statements by Senators Burns, Hollings, Inouye, McCain, Pressler, Stevens, and Jeff Bingaman were followed by an address by Diane Ravitch, Assistant Secretary of Education from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, who reviewed uses of telecommunications technology in education and introduced the proposed SMARTLINE computer interactive information service that can be a beginning of a comprehensive distance learning system. Additional testimony about the use of educational telecommunications technology was provided by the following persons: (1) Kay Abernathy, Beaumont Independent School Boards Association, Texas; (2) Celia Ayala, Los Angeles, California County Office of Education; (3) Jack Clifford, Colony Communications, Inc.; (4) John Kuglin, Cold Springs Elementary School, Missoula, Montana; (5) Harry R. Miller, United States Distance Learning Association; (6) David Morgan, San Marcos Telephone Company; (7) Mabel P. Phifer, Black College Satellite Network (BCSN) and the Central Educational Telecommunications Network (CETN), Washington, D.C.; (8) Linda G. Roberts, Office of Technology Assessment; (9) Clyde Sakamoto, Maui Community College, Kahului, Hawaii; (10) Ron Schoenherr, South Carolina Educational Television Commission; (11) Carter Ward, Missouri School Boards Association; (12) Shelly Weinstein, National Education Telecommunications Organization/Educational Satellite Corporation; and (13) Pat Wright, TCI Educational Services, Englewood, Colorado. An appendix contains prepared statements and additional commentary by other interested parties. (SLD)

Hearings were held on the Technology for Education Act of 1993 (S. 1040) to support systemic improvement of education and the development of a technologically literate citizenry and internationally competitive work force by establishing a comprehensive system through which appropriate technology-enhanced curriculum, instruction, and administrative support resources and services that support the national education goals and any national education standards that may be developed, are provided to schools throughout the United States. comprehensive way, the Act addresses issues related to the use of technology in education and gives it the high priority it deserves in educational planning. At the July hearings in Washington, a panel of educators focused on classroom success through technology, explaining what technology has done for them and providing eyewitness accounts of how technology opens opportunities for learning. A second panel of teachers and students provided hands-on demonstrations of some things that are currently available for classroom use. At the August hearings in Albuquerque, the same approach was used, with an introductory panel of educators and a second panel of teachers and students providing demonstrations. The bill provides a vision and strategy for technology at the federal level, with funding for equipment, teacher training, technical support, and incentives to develop the market for educational technology products. Prepared statements and supplemental material complement the statements of the more than 18 educators and students. (SLD)

Past U.S. policies toward Indian and other Native American languages have attempted to suppress the use of the languages in government-operated Indian schools for assimilating Indian children. About 155 Native languages are spoken today in the United States, but only 20 are spoken by people of all ages. The Native American Languages Act of 1990 and the Alaska Native Language Act of 1990 recognize that language is the basis of Native culture and identity. They outline federal policy for preserving and promoting the rights of Native Americans regarding their languages but do not authorize grants for tribally designed and operated language survival and revitalization programs. The Native American Languages Act of 1992 would authorize funds for the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) to award competitive grants to tribal governments and Native American organizations for Native language development and preservation, including establishment of language training programs, development of materials, purchase of recording equipment and computers, transcription and analysis of oral testimony, and conversion of existing facilities. This report includes section by section analysis of the Act, cost estimates, and ANA testimony supporting the Act's aims but criticizing the establishment of a new grant program. (SV)

In June 1992, a Senate hearing received testimony on the need for federal aid for maintenance of Native American languages. Such aid would fund community language facilities and programs, training of Native speakers as teachers, development of instructional materials, and compilation of oral materials. A speaker from the Administration for Native Americans (DHHS), while supporting the preservation of Native languages, argued that existing federal grant programs are sufficient to meet these purposes. Representatives of American Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, and organizations discussed the connection between language maintenance and cultural preservation, the importance of both language and culture to ethnic identity and self-esteem, and the status of Native language instruction and bilingual education in their areas. Linguists described the status and viability of Native languages in the United States, and discussed the importance of the existence of a broad range of living languages to the study of linguistics. Six papers from the journal "Language" discuss language loss and endangered languages worldwide; the Hualapai Bilingual/Bicultural Education Program in Peach Springs, Arizona; the Rama Language Project in Nicaragua; the collaboration of native speakers and professional linguists in Guatemala in developing Mayan linguistics; and the human value of linguistic diversity. Also included are many supporting statements and letters from organizations and individuals. (SV)

This report from the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources communicates the committee's approval of S. 1275 (which reauthorizes the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) through fiscal year 1999), suggests an amendment, and advocates the passage of the bill as amended. The central objective of the reauthorization bill is emphasized, i.e., to insure that what is learned from research has direct benefit upon classroom practice and learning, and it is noted that the heart of the bill lies in creating and strengthening the systems and the tools whereby research is adapted to address specific school and teaching challenges. This bill delineates for the first time the authority, responsibilities and functions of the OERI; clarifies its scope and mission; specifies what is within the OERI's discretionary authority; creates five new directorates to advance new, innovative, and even controversial educational ideas, concepts, and programs; creates a Distinguished Board of Governors to review the research agenda and operation of the OERI; creates a new Office of Dissemination; and redefines the mission of the educational research laboratories to bring proven practices into the classrooms. In addition this bill creates a new Teacher Dissemination Training Network to provide teachers with professional development in research; a National Council on Standards and Assessment; the Office of Educational Technology; two new discretionary grant programs to support the development of technology assisted instruction; a new educational exchange program designed to assist the nations of Central Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States; a program to address the inadequacy of science equipment in many elementary schools; and the Parents as Teachers Program. This report includes a review of legislative consideration and votes in committee, discussions of the need for legislation, an overview, and the provisions of the bill; a regulatory impact statement; a cost estimate; a section-by-section analysis; and line-by-line notations of changes in existing law. (ALF)

This document provides testimony, prepared statements, articles, publications, and other materials concerning the issue of augmenting current student financial assistance programs with the addition of direct student loans (Self Reliance Loans), and examines responsible ways in which the federal government should move in this direction. Among the persons providing testimony are the following: U.S. Senators Bill Bradley (New Jersey), Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Nancy Landon Kassebaum (Kansas), Paul Simon (Illinois), Strom Thurmond (South Carolina), and Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii) and U.S. Representative Thomas E. Petri (Wisconsin). Additional witnesses giving testimony or prepared statements include, among others,: John Silber, president, Boston University (Massachusetts); Father William J. Byron, president, The Catholic University, Washington, D.C.; Barry Bluestone, professor of political economy, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts; Roxie LaFever, vice president, financial aid, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona; and Elizabeth M. Hicks, coordinator of financial aid, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Materials presented include "Concerns and Unanswered Questions Regarding Income Dependent Education Assistance (IDEA) aka Self Reliance Loans," and a copy of a discussion draft of a bill to amend Part D of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for income dependent education assistance. (GLR)

This document represents proceedings of a workshop before the Senate Special Committee on Aging. The workshop focused on the severe shortage of health professionals in the rural health care system. Opening remarks by Portia Mittelman, Staff Director of the Special Committee on Aging and Jeffrey Human, Director of the Office of Rural Health Policy provide an overview of the problems and issues associated with delivery of rural health care services, including shortage of rural medical professionals, recruiting and training of medical students who will work in rural areas, and the existing programs focusing on rural health service delivery. The first panel of the workshop, with four speakers representing leaders in rural health care, examined national policies regarding the education of health professionals and the barriers to improvements. The panel emphasized personal sacrifices of rural health professionals, the need for professional support, medical students specialty choices, financial support for family medicine programs and primary care services, and improvement of rural manpower distribution. The second panel, consisting of five speakers, presented information on specific exemplary model programs that link medical education and training to rural areas. The appendix includes information about educational and community programs that address the health care needs of rural areas, articles addressing medical education reform, and written testimonies from various sources. (LP)