Sanchez Hears Pleas for Education Funding

SANTA ANA — After Republicans denied her the opportunity to hold an official congressional hearing, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove) came to town anyway on Tuesday to hear college leaders press for more federal aid for higher education, especially for Latinos.

Sanchez was supposed to host one of the Subcommittee on Post-secondary Education’s 12 field hearings to gather testimony on the Higher Education Act, the federal bill that sets priorities and funding arrangements for federal financial aid and scholarships. The five-year bill comes up for reauthorization later this year.

But a couple of weeks ago, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) informed Sanchez that, despite a previous agreement, no hearing would be held in the 46th District, which covers parts of north Orange County.

Sanchez said McKeon told her the Republicans did not believe a congressional hearing should be held in a district where an election outcome was under investigation, which Sanchez’s office said marks the first time the controversy has intruded on her official duties. The House is looking into claims by former congressman Robert K. Dornan that his 984-vote loss to Sanchez resulted from voter fraud.

*

“I was very surprised. The deal was cut,” Sanchez said, referring to the committee’s agreement to hold nine hearings in Republicans’ territory and three in Democrats’, with each party deciding where to hold the forums. The Democrats picked Rancho Santiago College, a heavily Latino campus, in part to hear testimony on the needs of Latinos.

But Armando Azarloza, a spokesman for McKeon, denied that the hearing was canceled because of the contested election.

Although he acknowledged McKeon discussed the election with Sanchez, “the real reason” for canceling the hearing was that one already had been held in California on Jan. 31, sponsored by McKeon at Cal State Northridge.

Azarloza said that despite the unofficial status of Tuesday’s meeting at Rancho Santiago College, McKeon would accept whatever testimony Sanchez collected.

“She is a valued member of the committee,” Azarloza said.

And, after listening to more than 20 speakers urge Congress to increase aid and services that benefit minority students, Sanchez declared her “congressional forum on higher education” a success.

And a bargain. She said the cost of the hearing, about $1,500, was far less than the $4,000 to $5,000 it would have cost for a full-blown congressional field hearing. The Democratic Party picked up the tab, she said.

Speaker after speaker decried high Latino high school drop-out rates and meager levels of financial aid. They suggested Congress realign funding to benefit colleges and universities that serve Latinos and support and expand partnerships between secondary schools and higher education.

Vivian Blevins, chancellor of Rancho Santiago Community College District, said funding that targets Latinos had remained flat over the years. The main source of those funds, Title III Strengthening Institutions, is a grant program developed in the mid-1960s to support historically black colleges as well as institutions with large numbers of low-income students.

*

In 1995, Title III funding stood at $80 million for 193 colleges in 45 states, plus $12.5 million for colleges and universities serving large numbers of Latinos. The following year the appropriation was cut to $55.4 million, with a separate outlay of $10.8 million for “Hispanic serving institutions.” President Clinton has proposed restoring the funding to 1995 levels.

Manuel Gomez, UCI vice chancellor for student services, used a riddle he heard from UCLA Latino health researcher David Hayes-Bautista to illustrate what can be done when government sets higher priorities for minority student aid.

“What kind of future could you envision for a population group that had a 25% poverty rate, a 50% chance of not completing high school, barely 9% of whom were college graduates and over half of whom had arrived in California only recently?”

Gomez and others thought the population group was Latinos. It was whites in the 1950s, who advanced in part from political planning for expanded resources and cogent leadership.

Gomez urged the same for Latinos now.