Robbing Peter to pay Paul - reauthorizing the higher education act

Black Issues in Higher Education, Oct 2, 1997 by Charles Dervarics

Reauthorizing the higher education act amid the new political reality means some programs may lose so that others might gain

Despite robust economic growth and a balanced budget on the horizon, the debate before the U.S. Senate was a stark one: spend more on Pell Grants for needy students or cut home heating aid for the poor and elderly this winter.

Conservative Republican Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) argued for Pell Grants, calling the heating program a remnant of the 1970s oil crisis and "the liberal welfare state." Democrats, with regret, said that they had to support energy aid, so that - as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said - people would not face "a choice between heating and eating."

Debates such as this one on September 3 reflect a new political reality for education advocates in here one that can put an unusual spin on partisan debates. Though Democrats won this debate and preserved the energy program, for some these are hollow victories that may not bode well as Congress tackles reform of the largest program for colleges and universities, the Higher Education Act (HEA).

The HEA is the major federal law that authorizes core higher education programs such as Pell Grants, college work/study, loan programs, aid to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), TRIO programs, and dozens of other activities from graduate education to regulations for campus security. Financial aid programs under HEA alone provide about $47 billion in aid and serve 8 million students. The bill officially expired on September 30, but lawmakers will hold hearings this year and submit a reauthorization bill for approval in 1998.

Every Increase Comes With a Price

The Rose Garden ceremony was tailor-made for television as President Bill Clinton, on August 5, signed an historic balanced-budget plan into law. The plan included many initiatives friendly to education, including a $40 billion package of education tax credits and a $300 increase in the maximum Pell Grant.

But the plan drew muted enthusiasm from some, who noted the package treats more affluent households better than less affluent ones.

"With all the discussion about HOPE scholarships and tax credits, all families with incomes below $28,000 a year are not going to become eligible," says Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), an opponent of the package which has no education credits for those with little or no income tax liability.

The plan also divided the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), whose leader, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) opposed it even though others endorsed it.

"There are things in this bill you wish were not in there," says CBC member Rep. Eva Clayton (D-N.C.) about the plan with total tax breaks of $275 billion over ten years.

By comparison, the government spent $29 billion in direct spending on education this year. But Clayton voted for the package, citing the education tax credits and more children's health funds.

"On balance, it may not be perfect, but I think it is good for America," she says.

Yet this pact and others have shifted the focus of spending debates, according to budget experts. Many plans to increase education spending now require equal offsetting cuts. Because proposals to boost education with cuts in defense are generally ruled out of order, lawmakers have two alternatives: use the tax code, or set domestic programs against each other for limited funds - as in the Pell Grant vs. energy debate.

"These are good programs," laments Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a member of Congress since 1974. "We should not be robbing one program that hits at the poorest...to help other low-income people get an education."

Sharing the Pie

It may be another year before it's clear how these trends will affect HEA reauthorization. But based on public hearings in 1997, it is already apparent that many worthy higher education causes will compete for limited federal funds.

Among those facing this situation is Title III, the section of HEA that includes aid to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). In 1997, Congress earmarked $129 million for HBCUs from a total Title III budget of $195 million. Of the remaining money, $10.5 million went to Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) and $55.4 million went for "developing" institutions such as community colleges.

Already, however:

* an HSI representative has asked the House of Representatives for "a minimum of $100 million" more to expand Title III, with nearly half of that money for Hispanic-serving institutions;

* tribal colleges proposed a new Title III program for those institutions, a plan U.S. Education Secretary Richard Riley publicly supports;

* and an HBCU representative sought $48 million to $50 million for Black graduate schools, more than double current funding for that purpose.

The main Title III HBCU program of undergraduate support could use an increase as well, claim HBCU administrators.

"We can always upgrade our programs," says Moses Griffin, Title III administrator at Wilberforce University in Ohio.

Wilberforce has used its most recent grant for retention, counseling, academic development, staff development and academic instruction and equipment, Griffin said. But the college cannot use any grant money to build endowments, something he feels Congress should allow all HBCUs in this reauthorization.