5‘: K3. cw A#flw, _ A§__-_, .W - 1 * T..7a.;..;:;‘%L{.;,i‘:‘ma;s.m...a :{{c.:mba ’ ” ” : i«:3§_ CONGRESSIONAL Hllllllll IILIIIW llllsllllilll lllslllllllllllllvlllllllllll RESEARCH 01-103361929 SERVICE ~ = UBRARYOF CONGRESS HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965: REAUTHORIZATION BY THE 96TH CONGRESS ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB79008 AUTHOR: Stednan, James B. Education and Public Welfare Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE HAJOR ISSUES SYSTEH DATE ORIGINATED glgggzg DATE UPDATED Qzgggggg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0729 CRS- 1 IB79008 UPDATE-07/28/80 The authorization for most programs of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, will expire during the 96th Congress. These programs constitute the primary Federal legislative effort to assist, the broad -range of postsecondary education institutions and students in this country. Currently approved E130 funding for the Higher Education Act will be spent principally for student financial assistance (over 90% of $4.9 billion). Issues being considered during this Congress include (1) Need for consolidation, coordination, and simplification of the act's student aid programs; (2) Rays to address fraud, abuse, and waste in the student aid programs; (3) Ways to reduce Federal costs, particularly in the student aid programs; (0) Need for Federal support of higher education institutions. To date, each House of Congress has passed a different version of H.R. 5192, Education Anendnents of 1980. This legislation will be the subject of. deliberation by a conference committee in the near future. EA§.§§.1iQ!11lD.-§.!2-£9.l-l§¥.._.§.1£AL.!§l§ with the pending expiration of most programs authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, the 96th Congress is making decisions affecting the structure and scope of the principal Federal programs 0 supporting the broad range of postsecondary education institutions and students. The FY80 appropriation level for “the institutional and student aid programs authorized by the Higher Education Act is approximately $4.9 billion. Over 90% of that funding supports student aid programs. Host of it will be spent during the 1980-81 school year. (The exception is $1.6 billion appropriated to meet required Guaranteed Student Loan payments on loans for the 1979-80 period.) Over three million students are likely to receive benefits, on the order of one out of every three students enrolled. These student benefits will take the form of grants, loans, .and work, and are available to students in colleges, universities, and postsecondary vocational schools. Although only limited institutional assistance is presently available, and, unlike student aid, cannot be used at schools operated for profit, a substantial portion of the over 3,000 institutions of postsecondary education eligible to participate in the institutional aid programs will lvreceive some funds under the act. For example, over 2,500 schools use Higher Education Act funds for support of their library programs. , To date, each House of Congress has passed a different version of H.R. 192, Education Amendments of 1980. This legislation, discussed in detail later in this issue brief, will be ‘the subject of deliberation by a conference committee in the near future. CRS- 2 IB79008 UPDATE-07/28/80 §2rr_n£--i9ner Edneatien A2:_2r99ra2§ A general understanding of the various Higher Education Act programs, primarily the student aid ones, is necessary to appreciate the various issues being considered during the reauthorization process. Student aid programs authorized by the Higher Education Act include the following: §a§;2-§dn2ationa1 0nn0r:nn;t1.§ran:_1§§9§L_2r99ran - grants based on need provided to undergraduate students enrolled at least half- time. Haximum awards of $1,800 are available for the 1979-80 school year. Grant amounts are determined by an Office of Education need analysis system. FY80 appropriation: $1,718,000,000 ($614,000,000 in prior year appropriations are to be used during academic year 1980-81, and $140,000,000 of the FY80 appropriation has been rescinded). §222le2en§al.§d22at;9na1 0nnor:2ni:1.§rant-l§§Q§L_ Eregran -- need-based grants for undergraduates enrolled at least half—time. The grants range up to $1,500 a year, or half the sum of the total amount of aid provided to the student, whichever is less. Unlike the BEOG Program, these grants are administered by postsecondary institutions. FY80 appropriation: $370,000,000. §§atg_§tggggt_;ggggtive Grant JSSIGL gggggag - need-based grants for full-time undergraduates. Grants cannot exceed $1,500. Federal appropriations in support of State—run programs must be matched on at least a one to one basis by the States. These grants are administered by States. FY80 appropriation: $76,750,000. gggganteed Stugent_;oan JGSL1 Program —-loans for undergraduate, graduate and professional students enrolled at least half-time. Maximum annual limits of $2,500 for undergraduates and $5,000 for graduate or professional students. Aggregate limits for these two groups are $7,500 and $15,000 respectively. Interest of 7% per year is charged over the maximum 10-year repayment period, but interest is paid for borrowers while they are enrolled. Funds are lent by private lenders, schools and state agencies. FY80 appropriation: $959,621,000, plus $6fl9,700,000 FY80 supplemental. Qelleqe- E9r5:§t2d1_ J§E§L- Brennan -° part-tine work for needy undergraduates, graduate and professional students enrolled at least half—time. Eighty percent of student earnings under this program is provided by Federal appropriation. This program is administered by postsecondary institutions. FY80 appropriation: $550,000,000. §ati2nal_ Qirest- §E2Q§nE_ L9an..1§2§LL_.2r2qra2 d-— loans for needy undergraduate, graduate and professional students enrolled at least half—time. Aggregate maximum amounts that may be borrowed are $5,000 for students who have successfully completed the first 2 years of undergraduate study, $10,000 if they are graduate or professional students, and $2,500 for all other students. Interest of 3% per year is charged over the maximum 10-year repayment period. Federal contributions to institutional loan funds are matched on a nine to one basis (Federal funds to institutional funds). This program is administered by postsecondary institutions. FY80 appropriation: $300,800,000. The SEOG, CR8 and NDSL programs are called "campus-based" programs because CRS- 3 IB7 90 G8 UPDATE-07/28/80 they are administered by financial aid officers at the campus level. Institutional aid programs authorized by the Higher Education Act provide - financial support for a variety of purposes, including (1) Community service activities of higher education institutions (FY80 appropriation: $10,000,000); (2) Acquisition of library resources (FY80 appropriation: $4,988,000); (3) Strengtheing of "developing" institutions (academically isolated and financially struggling institutions) (FY80 appropriation: $110,000,000); and (a) Clinical experience programs in law (FY80 appropriation: $fl,000,000). Authorized institutional aid programs not currently funded range from support for the establishment and expansion of new community colleges to new construction assistance. ;§§2e§_£or the 962h_§929;es Hearings held by the House Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education and by the Senate Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities served to identify a variety of issues involving the Higher Education Act. Three of the major ones are discussed below. (1) §eed-£22.922§2liQe:ioni coordinati22_ehé-§iz2li£i§e§i9n-9£ the etudent ei§-2r9q;e2§._22i;e2i;1_the-§:udent.1oen eseqreaei The Higher Education Act student aid programs differ in their application procedures, origination points, monitoring and servicing agencies, annual and aggregate levels _of assistance, eligibility criteria, and, for the loan programs, repayment terms. The coordination of awards among these assistance programs is, according to many observers, problematic at best. (2) !§1§-£9-§QQ£§§§-§£§Q§i_§2E§E and 'Q§Ee in the §EBQ§££- dig P£QQ£é!§; There is nothing new about the fact that Higher Education Act student aid programs are subject to significant fraud, abuse and waste. HEW's Office of the Inspector General has concluded that scne 10% of the funds allotted for student aid was misused during the period April through December 1977. In his CY78 report, the Inspector General stated that "the transformation in the management effectiveness of the Student Financial Assistance programs during the past two years has been comprehensive and cost-effective, although far more remains to be done.‘ A General Accounting Office study of ethe BEOG Program concluded that, in the 197a-75 school year, ineligible students received as much as an estimated $2u.3 million and that approximately $117.9 million was awarded in that year without resolution of inconsistencies on applications. some 500,000 BEOG applications were rejected for the 1978-79 school year because of a tightened computer check on such inconsistencies. Default rates in the NDSL and GSL Programs are a problem. The Administration warns that, although defaults in the GSL Program are being curbed, defaults in the NDSL Program are rising significantly. [For additional details on his subject, see Issue Brief 75017, Student Loan Programs (Federal): -efaults.] Reduction of fraud, abuse and waste is being approached in a number of ways. For example, to address the problemslof defaults in the student loan program, income—related repayment schedules have been suggested. Also, CBS- H IB79008 UPDATE-OT/28/80 legislation has been enacted that would serve to encourage lenders to disburse Guaranteed Student Loans in several installments (reducing A borrower's liability if he or she fails to complete his or her term of study, and to authorize institutions of higher education to refer their defaulted National Direct Student Loans to the Commissioner of Education for collection (P.L. 96-49). (3) Aged. :92. Federal- §2222r§_ 0:. higher. eQu2a§i.n- _ ._ 2 ..- 22r:i29lerl1-rh2§e.§er!in9-29neentratiene-9£-Qi§adzantageQ_§t9éenr§ §n__..-.. pg;§g;;;ng_g;§§;_;g§gggghg Although somewhat less than 10% of the FY80 appropriations for the Higher Education Act programs will be spent for direct assistance to postsecondary institutions, institutional assistance is a topic of debate in this Congress. The Strengthening Developing Institutions Program (Title III), the act's major institutional aid program, is the focus of serious criticism. A recent General Accounting Office report concluded that the program lacked direction, was subject to waste and abuse, and was unsuccessful in achieving its goals. crhe Federal Erogram to Strengthen Developing Institutions of Higher Education Lacks Direction. HRD-78-170. February 13, 1979.) other institutional aid 5 initiatives are x being) considered, including increased support to research in universities and support to urban universities. ggagthggiggtion Proposals Congressional activity is now centered cm the process of reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of H.R. 5192. The Senate version contains the amended language of 3. 1839, inserted in lieu of the language of H.B. 5192 as passed by the House.) Following House passage of H.R. 5192, the question of the cost to the Federal Government of a reauthorized Higher Education Act became a matter of serious debate, particularly with regard to the student loan programs. As a result, the Senate bill contains several cost-cutting proposals. The House and Senate versions propose significant amendments to the Higher Education Act, with several areas of major concern, including (1) modification and reform of student aid programs, (2) aid to "developing" institutions, (3) efforts to address continuing education needs, and (4) aid to urban universities. The following comparison focuses on the four selected issues and is not intended to be comprehensive. A Both versions of H.B. 5192 would provide a wide variety of amendments to student aid programs, some of which are described below. Both would raise the current $1,800 maximum grant allowed under the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program (the Senate renames the grants as Pell Grants) as well as its current 50% limitation on the proportion of student costs these grants can cover. The Senate language would raise the maximum to $1,900 in 1981-82 and, in stages, to $2,600 by 1985-86. The cost limitation would be raised in stages beginning in 1982-83 to 60% by 1980-85. The House language would raise the maximum to $1,980 in 1931-82 and, in stages, to $2,520 by 1984-85. The cost limitation would be raised in stages beginning in 1982-82‘ to 70% by 198“-85. The loan programs authorized by the Higher Education Act would be CRS- 5 IB79008 UPDATE-OT/28/80 extensively modified by The Senate and less so by the House. Consider, Lrst, the Guaranteed Student Loan Program -- (1) The Senate would decrease the extent of Federal subsidization of Guaranteed Student loans, primarily through an increase to 9% in the interest charged to students (currently 7%), a requirement that repayment by borrowers begin 4 months following termination of half-time enrollment and the repayment of interest subsidy payments by certain borrowers (this provision was adopted on the Senate floor). Currently, repayments begin 9 months to 1 year following termination of half-time enrollment. The bill would expand eligibility for loans and raise borrowing limits for currently eligible borrowers. Parents of dependent undergraduates would be eligible to borro $3,000 a year with an aggregate limit of $15,000. Interest of 9% would be charged on parental loans; and, if interest payment is delayed for more than 60 days following disbursement, the interest rate would be raised to 14%. New loan limits would be established for . undergraduate students independent of their parents ($3,000 a year and $15,000 aggregate) and for graduate and professional students (raised from the current $15,000 to $25,000). The Senate version of H.R. 5192 would also establish four separate special allowance rates (used to determine Federal payments to increase lenders‘ rates of return) --.(1) for loans made after Oct. 1, 1980 the rate is based on the rate of 91-day Treasury bills minus 5.5%, (2) for loans made prior.to Oct. 1, 1980 the basis is 91-day Treasury bills minus 3.5%, (3) for parental loans, the basis is 91-day Treasury bills minus 10.5%, and (4) for loans made with proceeds from tax exempt bonds, the allowance rate is one-half that for loans made after Oct. 1, 1980. A Committee on Determining Student Loan Special Allowances would be created to investigate and develop new methods of determining rates. The Student Loan Marketing Association (the secondary market for the program) would no longer be government-sponsored, could consolidate loans for borrowers and could act as a lender in areas where loan availability is limited. State Guarantee Agencies could perform consolidation and lending of last resort, as well. To address loan defaults, the Secretary of Education would be authorized to inform credit bureaus of borrowers in default. In addition, the Secretary would be authorized to share borrowers‘ names and addresses with State Guarantee Agencies, no matter the original source of such information. Finally, lenders under the program would have to«counsel borrowers through provision of specified information. (2) The House would expand the Guaranteed Student Loan Program to include parents of dependent undergraduate students ($3,000 annual limit ami $15,000 aggregate limit). Interest would be 7% on these loans beginning not more than 60 days after the loan is made. Repayment beginning after that date would be at a higher effective annual rate. Other CRS- 6 IB79008 UPDATE-OI/28/80 loan limits would be raised -- independent undergraduates could borrow up to $3,000 a year with an aggregate limit of $15,000; dependent undergraduates would have an aggregate limit of $12,500 (up from $7,500) and graduate and professional students would have an aggregate limit of $25,000 (up from $15,000). The Student Loan Marketing Association would be authorized to consolidate loans for borrowers and act as a lender in areas where loan availability is limited. To address loan defaults, the Secretary of Education would be authorized to inform credit bureaus.of borrowers in default. In addition, the Secretary would be authorized to share borrowers’ names and addresses with State Guarantee Agencies, no matter what the original source of such infomation. Turning to the National Direct Student Loan Program -- (1) The Senate would create a National Direct Student Loan Association to provide all funding (rather than the current 90% coming from Federal sources) for National Direct Student Loans distributed on college campuses. Federal subsidization of these loans would be diminished through an increase in interest paid by students from 3% to 7%, and deletion of all cancellation provisions (currently loans are forgiven for certain public services such as teaching handicapped children). Collections would be handled directly or through contract by the Association. Aggregate borrowing limits would be raised to $12,000 for graduate and professional students, $6,000 for students having completed 2 years of study, and $3,000 for all others. (Current limits are $10,000, $5,000 and $2,500 respectively.) The Association would be authorized to share borrowers‘ names and addresses with institutions of higher education, no matter what the original source of such information. (2) The House would provide new limits on aggregate borrowing of $12,000 for graduate and professional students, $6,000 for students having completed 2 years of study, and $3,000 for all others. The Secretary would be authorized to inform credit bureaus of borrowers in default. AiQ_r9_2De!e1o9in9" Ieerisetieee This program, Title III of the Higher Education Act, would be amended by both bills. The Senate would rename Title III as “Institutional Aid" and divide it into two programs -- one to "Aid Institutions with Special Needs“ and the other to provide “Assistance to Institutions Enrolling Substantial Percentages of Disadvantaged Students." Institutions with special needs are defined as having: enrollment of at least 100 full—time equivalent students (the number of full-time students plus the full-time equivalent number of part-time students); low average education and general expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student; and a substantial percentage of students from low-income families. (This last factor was added on the Senate floor.) The Secretary of Education may also look at other quantitative as well as qualitative factors in determining eligibility. Grants of no more than 5 years can be made to institutions -for faculty development, administrative improvement, academic programs, etc. Federal cns— 7 1379003 UPDATE-07/28/80 funding must drop to 90% of a project's cost by the third year of funding, to )% by the fourth year, and to 70% by the fifth year. Not less than 30% of the funding for this program would be for' community or junior colleges. : Federal challenge grants can be made to institutions on a matching basis. The second program authorized by the Senate would distribute funding to institutions with a substantial percentage of students from low-income families and low average expenditures per FTB student by means of a formula driven by the two eligibility factors plus the amount of resources available to an institution and the institution's relative effort to provide its own student assistance funds. These funds could be used to meet costs for instruction and academically related programs. Funding authorization would be $161 million in FY81 rising to $285 million by FY85, divided equally in each year between the two programs. A set-aside for schools that historically serve black students is provided (added through.a Senate floor amendment). vThe House would direct Title III funds to the aid of institutions that have a substantial number of low-income students and low average expenditures per full-time equivalent student. The current funding authorization of $120 million would be raised in stages to $200 million for FY8u and FY85. Community or junior colleges would be guaranteed a floor of 2fl% of program funding rather than their current ceiling of 2u%. Grants would be awarded either for up to 3 years, or for between u and 7 years. Institutions choosing the latter multi-year awards would not be eligible for further funding under the title. A program of federally matched challenge grants would also be authorized. In addition, under an amendment accepted on the floor of the House, the application review process would be established in aw, an orientation process would be provided to application readers, a committee on review would be established to review grants awards approved by \ readers, and publication in the Federal Register of detailed information on the review accorded each successful application would be required. §2-:;n2;n9_§§u2a:i2n_§ee-§ Both versions of H.B. 5192 would alter the specific focus of, and activities currently authorized by, Title I (Community Service and Continuing Education Programs) of the Higher Education Act. The Senate would rename the title as "Continuing Postsecondary Education Program and Planning.“ A Commission on National Development in Postsecondary Education would be established to review the effectiveness of policies reflecting Federal responsibilities in postsecondary education (identified as including equal access, quality of higher education, and responsiveness of higher education to changing social and economic needs). Funding would be provided for statewide planning for continuing education, programs I of information dissemination, efforts to address the needs of adult learners, etc. Funding would also support pilot projects for exploring ways to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of postsecondary education, including schools of education, to deliver postsecondary education opportunities to women in the workplace, and to bring the resources of postsecondary education to bear on F the problem of youth unemployment. 1 The House would rename the title as "Education Outreach Programs." This ew authority would consolidate various programs and activities currently provided in several provisions of the Higher Education Act, such as the Educational Information Centers authority in Title IV and the authority for State Postsecondary Education Commissions in Title XII. Representative Ford has described these amendments as establishing a title for "federally- CRS- 8 IB79008 UPDATE-07/28/80 supported state activities in planning, education information services and continuing education with a clear focus on serving the needs of adults, particularly those adults who have lacked access and been underserved by educational programs.“ Aié_£9_Q;2eu Universities Both versions would add a new Title XI to the Higher Education Act authorizing an "Urban Grant University Program" to help eligible institutions apply their resources to the problems facing urban areas. The Senate would specify that the Secretary of Education's priority would be the development of cooperative arrangements among institutions of higher education within urban area. As defined by this new title in both versions, an "urban university must, in part, be located in an urban area (defined as a standard metropolitan statistical area of 500,000 or more, or an area designated by the Secretary in a State with no such eligible area), draw a substantial portion of its undergraduates from the urban area, offer a range of professional or graduate programs, and have the capacity to provide resources meeting urban needs. The Senate would authorize $11.3 million for FY81 rising to $u1.3 million by FY85. In contrast, the House would authorize $50 million in FY81 increasing it to $100 million by FY85. L§§l§Lé$lQ§ Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1979. Extends expiring Higher Education Act programs for 1 year; waives provision of the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program to allow carryover of funds from 1978-79 award period into 1979-80 award period; implements existing provision to encourage dispersal of Guaranteed Student Loans in several installments; authorizes institutions of higher education to refer National Direct Student Loans to the Office of Education for collection; removes ceiling on special allowance paid on Guaranteed student Loans to keep total return to lenders competitive with other types of loans; specifies that eligible program length ‘on nonprofit postsecondary vocational education institutions is 6 months, making program length requirement consistent for nonprofit and profit-making vocational schools; extends the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education and National Institute of Education for 1 year; and makes a technical amendment to the Middle Income student Assistance Act. Introduced June 1a, 1979; referred to Committee on Education and Labor. Reported to the House July 5, 1979. Referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported to the House July 19, 1979. Passed the House July 31, 1979. Passed the Senate, with amendment, July 31, 1979. Passed the House as amended Aug. 1, 1979. Signed into law Aug. 13, 1979. H.R. 5192 (Ford et al.) Education Amendments of 1980. The House-passed version of this bill extends most programs of the Higher Education Act through FY85. Among its provisions are the following: creates a general authority for Education Outreach Programs replacing the current Title I (Community Service and Continuing Education Programs) (see discussion above in text); raises the maximum library resource grant to $10,000 under Title II (College and Research Library Assistance and Library Training and Research) and adds authority for a National Periodical Center to the title; extends and amends CRS- 9 IB79008 UPDATE-07/28/80 Title III (Strengthening Developing Institutions) (see discussion above in ext); amends Title IV (Student Assistance) (see discussion above in text), extends and amends Title V (Teacher Corps and Teacher Training Programs); repeals current Title VI (Undergraduate Instruction) replacing it with a new Foreign Studies and Language Development Program which combines Title VI of the National Defense Education Act and selected . provisions of the International Education Act; extends and amends Title VII (Construction, Reconstruction and Renovation of Academic Facilities); extends and amends Title VIII (Cooperative Education); extends and amends Title IX (Graduate Programs), expanding funding possibilities for the training of disadvantaged students in the legal profession and moving an ameded version of the current Title XI (Law School Clinical Experience Program) into this title; repeals the current Title X (Community Colleges), replacing it with language authorizing the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (currently authorized under the General Education Provisions Act); adds a new Title XI (Urban Grant University Program) (see discussion above in text); extends and amends Title III (General Provisions). Introduced Sept. 6, 1979; referred to Education and Labor Committee. Ordered reported Sept. 26, 1979 from the Education and Labor Committee. Passed by the House Nov. 7, 1979. H.R. 5210 (Ford of flich., by request) Education Amendments of 1979. Extends most programs of the Higher Education Act through FY85. Provisions include the following: focuses Title III (Strengthening Developing Institutions) on institutions enrolling low-income students and spending low amounts per full-time equivalent student; amends Title IV (Student Assistance), creating a Basic Loan Program or students with a higher interest rate and higher loan limits than the National Direct Student Loan Program which it replaces, creating a Supplemental Loan Program open to students and their parents with a higher (1 interest rate and higher loan limits than the Guaranteed Student Loan Program which it replaces, and providing for the development of a single Federal need analysis system; repeals the current Title VI (Improvement of Undergraduate Instruction), replacing it with a new Foreign Studies and Language Development Program which combines Title VI of the National Defense Education Act and selected provisions of the International Education Act; repeals the Mining and Public Service Fellowship Programs of Title IX (Graduate Programs); repeals Title I (Community Colleges) and Title XI (Law School Clinical Experience Programs). Introduced Sept. 7, 1979; referred to Committee on Education and Labor. H.R. 5192 (Pell) Higher Education Amendments of 1980. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 5192 (originally introduced and considered as S. 1839) extends most programs of the Higher Education Act through FY85. Among its provisions are the following: creates a new Continuing Postsecondary Education Program and Planning authority as Title I (see discussion above in text); establishes a National Periodical System Corporation to assess the feasibility and advisability of developing a National Periodical System as part of Title II (College Library Assistance in Library Training and Research); amends Title III (renaming it Institutional Aid) (see discussion above in text); extends nd amends Title IV (Student Assistance) (see discussion above in text); xtends and amends Title V (Teacher Corps and Teacher Training Program); repeals the current Title VI and replaces: it with a new authority for International Education Programs, including international and foreign language studies centers and programs, as well as a program to improve 0.5. foreign trade by linking businesses and the international education resources CRS-10 IB79008 UPDATE'01/28/80 of higher education institutions; extends and amends Title VII (Construction, Reconstruction and Renovation of Academic Facilities); extends and amend’ Title VIII (Cooperative Education); extends and amends Title IX (Graduate Programs) increasing the number of recipients of fellowship for graduate and professional study including individuals in public service programs, mining and mineral conservation study, energy conservation or development as well as disadvantaged individuals entering graduate or professional study, creating a new National Graduate Fellows Program to make awards based on merit to students in the arts, humanities and social sciences, authorizing new National Talent Grants for First Year Graduate and Professional Study based on need and merit, expanding funding possibilities for the training of disadvantaged students in the legal profession and moving an amended version of the current Title XI (Law School Clinical Experience Program) into this title; repeals the current Title X (Community Colleges), replacing it with authorization language for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (currently authorized under the General Education Provisions Act); adds a new Title XI (Urban Grant University Program) (see discussion above in text); extends and amends Title XII (General Provisions); extends and amends the National Institute of Education (authorized by the General Education Provisions Act); in its own Title XIV establishes a trust fund in the Treasury to assist in the development of the Robert A. Taft Institute which conducts political education programs for elementary and secondary teachers; in Title XV (General Education Provisions) amends the General Education Provisions Act; in Title XVI (Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board) makes conforming amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; in Title XVII (Tax Status) specifies that the National Periodical System Corporation and the National Direct Student Loan Association are tax exempt; in Title XVIII (The William Levi Dawson Chair of Public Affairs) provides funding for the establishment of a chair in public affairs at Fisk University to honor Willia: Levi Dawson; in Title XIX (Native Hawaiian Education) amends various statutes to provide educational assistance to Native Hawaiians; in Title XX (New Land Grant Colleges) provides.that the Community College of American Samoa and the Community College of Micronesia have landegrant status; in Title XXI (General Daniel James Hemorial Health Education Center) provides funding for construction of a health education center at Tuskegee Institute to honor General Daniel James; in Title XXII (The Navajo Community College Assistance Program) amends the Navajo Community College Act to increase that institution's funding; in Title XXIII (Refugee Children Impact Aid Program) amends the Impact Aid statute (P.L. 87a, 81st Congress) to provide financial. assistance to local education agencies experiencing increased enrollment of refugee children. Introduced Sept. 28, 1979 as S. 1839; referred to Labor and Human Resources Committee. Ordered reported Apr. 30, 1980 from the Labor and Human Resources Committee. The language of S. 1839, as amended, was agreed to by the Senate on June 20, 1980, and inserted in lieu of the text of H.R. 5192. H.R. 5192 passed by the Senate on June 20, 1980. .3.DDl$.3EQE§L..3§E§B.EE‘-.E§_.§QQ§§§§ Gladieux, Lawrence E. and Thomas B. Wolanin. Congress and the Colleges. Lexington, flass., Lexington Books, 1976. 273 p. 0.5. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Federal student assistance: legislative history, 95th Congress, 2d session [by] James Stedman. Washington, 1979. Report 79-6EPW. (LTR 79-38) CBS-11 IB79008 UPDATE—07/28/80 ---+ Future higher education enrollment: an analysis of enrollment projections [by] James Stedman. Washington, 1978. Report 73-u ED. (LTB 73-97) Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act by the 96th Congress —— selected issues [by] James Stednan. Washington, 1979. Report 79-8839?. (LTR 79-525) ---- Student loan programs (federal): defaults [by] James Stednan. [Hashington] 1975. (Issue brief 75017) Regularly updated. LIB!"-'¢¢¢-\’:鑧‘x’ OF % WASHiNGTON UNI‘./EFKSITY ST. LOLJIFS — M0. 1} MU Libraries University of Missouri——Columbia Digitization Information for Congressional Research Service Digitization Project Local identifier CRSIB Source information Format Content type Notes Capture information Date captured Scanner manufacturer Scanner model Scanning system software Optical resolution Color settings File types Derivatives — Access copy Compression Editing software Resolution Color File types Notes Book Text Cover has cut—out to show title on title Page Stamped with property stamp for Washington University including deaccession stamp Some have labels on front page Some have black out markings on front page SuDoc numbers handwritten on front page Some items have very light print Some front pages have colored backgrounds Items not added to University of Missouri collection 20l7 April Ricoh MP C4503 600 dpi grayscale tiff Group 4 600 dpi bitonal tiff