What do you consider the greatest strength and greatest weakness of American higher education?

BRADLEY:

My philosophy of education is that it must begin at birth, must extend through life, and must include everyone. So, in looking at the strengths and weaknesses of higher education, my consideration is how well it achieves the second and third of these goals.

By this standard, the greatest strength of higher education in the United States is its flexibility, variety, and its capacity to provide for continuous learning through life. Our system of colleges and universities is unique in the world in that it gives people endless opportunities Whether it is a mother returning to complete a master's degree after her children are out of the house, or a manufacturing worker using a community college to build new technical skills, or a gifted high-school student taking advanced courses at a nearby university, our system of higher education offers opportunities throughout life that make it possible for people to move forward continuously to higher levels of achievement, satisfaction, and well-being.

The greatest weakness, by the same standard, is that the benefits of higher education are so far out of reach of many famities.

I have long believed that our system of financial assistance should be as flexible and responsive as the higher-education system itselt. That's why in 1991, I proposed Self-Reliance Loans, under which people at any age and regardless of income would be able to borrow money for college, and pay it back not as a fixed monthly amount, but as a percentage of income. In this way, the economic value of higher education could be used directly to help open the door to that education. I'm pleased that the ideas I proposed became law in 1993. Students now have the option to repay loans as a percentage of income. As president, I will make sure that these options are better publicized, particularly for people who are considering college and should not be deterred. I also remain committed to expand other forms of student assistance to bring the promise of higher education to all.

GORE:

The United States is recognized as a world leader in higher education due to the variety and quality of its colleges and universities. I believe, however, that more needs to be done to increase access for all Americans by making college more affordable.

I would like to see America not only retain its prominence as a leader in higher education, but expand the number of Americans taking advantage of our nation's higher-education system. While I support the administration's Pell Grants and tuition tax credit, I think that even more needs to be done to make college affordable. That is why I have proposed a National Tuition Savings plan that would allow families to save for their children's college education, inflation-free and taxfree. I support the president's budget proposal to expand the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit and make up to $10,000 worth of college tuition tax-deductible. Under our administration, we have increased Pell Grants by 52 percent, and I will continue my commitment to this important program. I have also proposed lifelong-learning accounts that allow employers and individuals to put money away for qualified highereducation expenses, tax-free. These 401(j) accounts would let you save for job training, education, and lifelong learning, and let those savings grow tax-free.

Making college affordable will help Americans take advantage and invest in one of the finest higher-education systems in the world and will help Americans reach their fullest potential in the 21st century.

BUSH:

Our greatest strengths are our faculty, students, and commitment to excellence, making America the world leader in higher education. Every year, U.S. colleges attract the best and the brightest students from all over the world. I want to make sure that higher education is affordable and accessible to every American. And therein lie our greatest weaknesses: college tuition and the burden of student indebtedness.

I am committed to helping families prepare for the cost of higher education. I will focus on helping American families save, coordinating student-loan and -grant programs more efficiently, and demanding that colleges be fiscally responsible in minimizing tuition costs. My tax plan cuts rates for everyone and doubles the child tax credit, which means today's parents in particular will have more resources to save for their children's education. I have also proposed expanding Education Savings Accounts so parents can contribute up to $5,000 per child in an account and can withdraw the funds taxfree to use for college education.

KEYES:

Independence has been the mark of the American character, and it is also the mark of our colleges and universities, so that there is a certain delicacy about candidates' speaking on the strengths and weaknesses of our large, diverse, and jealously self-governing institution. This is as it should be.

Accordingly, it would be presumptuous for me to speak of "my agenda" for education as though I would wish to give a particular direction for colleges and universities. . . [candidate's ellipsis] though as a former university president, I might be tempted to do so! But I think that some recollection of the principles of the American regime does reveal certain implications for federal policy regarding higher education.

We are the people who first tried the great experiment of self-government, founded on the proposition that "all men are created equal," and on a reasonable faith in the capacity of a morally decent people to govern themselves by "reflection and choice."

Accordingly, the federal government's policy toward our colleges and universities must proceed from the larger goal of helping our people recover the means and ideals of self-government through reform of our tax policy, recovery of respect for the foundations of our culture and especially the family, and a new national resolve to live up to the best that is in us.

What would be some of the implications for American higher education of a successful renewal of the moral foundations of America? Families liberated from the chains of the income tax can and will save for college. Men and women who expect and get decency from their government will be more apt to study, respect, even revere the classical works of their civilization. They will become eager to pass that heritage on to the young as their teachers. Self-reliant and confident students will become innovative and productive engineers, physicians, teachers, and researchers.

American higher education will increasingly involve online and independent study Government and education must not fear such innovation, nor should they endeavor to hinder it by monopolistic regulation or backwards-looking subsidies. There is a natural synergy between the best of traditional education and the latest novelties of the Intemet, and Americans will find their way through these changes as they have in the past, if we recover and nourish our national character.

MCCAIN:

The greatest strength of America's highereducation system is its quality. Our nation's colleges, universities, and postsecondary institutions set the standard, and higher education will continue to be the key to equal opportunity and economic advancement in our society for a growing number of Americans who enroll in higher education.

At the same time, the rising cost of higher education is perhaps the system's greatest weakness, and a major concern for American families. Tuition for college continues to skyrocket, making it harder and harder for working families to save and pay for their children's education.

Many students are finding it harder and harder to pay for college. Which is more the cause: the rising costs of college or the diminished availability of financial aid?

BRADLEY:

Whatever the cause, we need to recognize that financial aid, especially from public sources, has not kept pace with the cost of college.The gap between cost and students' ability to pay has widened through the decade of the 1990's. That's one more reason to make the financial-aid system more open and flexible, with more options for repayment of loans.

I have also proposed the first major federal initiative that would build those institutions that are the affordable gateway to higher education for 50 percent of students and most minority students: community colleges. My Lifelong Learning Community Initiative would provide $2-billion in new resources to help community colleges build stronger connections both to local employers and to four-year institutions for students who aspire to transfer. This may not in itself reduce the gap between cost and ability to pay for four-year higher education, but it will expand and greatly improve the most affordable point of entry to postsecondary education.

In addition, I have proposed a new initiative called Teach to Reach, to help students pay for college if they intend to teach after graduation, with the goal of bringing 60,000 well-qualified new teachers into urban and rural schools every year. Teach to Reach will provide 10,000 scholarships each year, and loan forgiveness for 50,000 more students who are committed to teaching. In this way, we will both ease the path to college and bring the benefits of higher education back to the classroom for younger students, ensuring that they are taught by qualified and well-educated professionals.

GORE:

President Clinton and I have worked hard over the past years to increase the availability of financial aid. College enrollment is up over the past few years, and enrollment for African-American and Hispanic kids has increased about 20 percent. I am proud of the fact that our Hope Scholarship, Lifetime Learning Tax Credits, and substantial increases in Pell Grants have opened the doors of college for millions of Americans. We created the Direct Student Loan Program, which has made loans easier to access while saving taxpayers over $4-billion, and we have created AmeriCorps and invested in Work-Study But we need to do much more.

Since college costs are currently rising faster than the rate of inflation, I believe that inflationary costs are a large barrier to access to higher education. Improving access to higher education is essential to a quality education system in the United States, and is one of my top priorities for improving our nation's education system. That is why I have proposed a National Tuition Savings plan that would allow families to save for their children's college education, inflation-free and tax-free. The program would link together over 30 existing statewide college-savings plans, many of which let families invest their money in special accounts, which grow tax-free, others, inflation-free. We should increase access to these programs, allow each parent's savings to be used in any participating state, and use incentives to encourage states that do not have the programs to create them.

I have also proposed lifelong-learning accounts that allow employers and individuals to put money away for qualified highereducation expenses, tax-free. These 401(j) accounts would let you save for job training, education, and lifelong learning, and let those savings grow tax-free. You could use this account for yourself, your spouse, even your child's college tuition. This will be a powerful new tool to help people save for learning.

In this year's fiscal-year 2001 budget, the president also proposed making up to $10,000 of college tuition tax-deductible. I support this proposal and urge the Congress to fund it,

These programs should help to make college more affordable and eliminate a barrier to higher education for millions of Americans.

BUSH:

College tuition has increased three times as fast as household incomes over the past 20 years, making it difficult for some families and students to afford college. During the same time, tuition for public and private college students has increased more than 200 percent on average, and more than 4 percent over the last year. I will work to make college more affordable for more students by expanding student financial aid. Colleges must also do their part to contain the skyrocketing cost of tuition.

KEYES:

What are the principles that should guide the involvement of the federal government in the enterprise of higher education in America? Let's start by noting one prominent and important piece of experience that should attract our attention. The contrast between the continued success of many parts of American higher education and the disappointing record of our K-12 schools correlates very powerfully to the long tradition of independent colleges and universities, and the vigor and diversity they provide. Effective means of parental choice in K-12 have been lacking; in higher education they have been present. A paramount concern of federal education policy must he the continued vitality of independent colleges and universities.

The Founding generation showed that it intended some federal role in the promotion of higher learning by its establishment of the Library of Congress, which purchased the personal collection of Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Service academies, too, though not expressly authorized by the Constitution, are surely included in the mandate to provide for the common defense, even though they are in the first instance institutions of higher education, Promotion of "the progress of science and useful arts" is the express intention of the constitutionally authorized patent office. The work of scientific pioneers like Lewis and Clark, continued in such agencies as the U.S. Geological Survey and NASA, is further testimony to a role of the federal government in the intellectual progress of the nation. Our founding statesmen, from Washington through Jefferson to Madison, all expressed heartfelt sentiments about the connection between education and the national well-being.

There is a reason for this, and it is a reason worth attending to. A free people is only worthy of freedom if it uses the God-given light of reason to conduct its affairs, and the cultivation of that fight is the proper end of education and research. Moreover, there are inquires which, because of their cost, or abstractness, or time frame, are not likely to be the object of private individuals or associations--or, at least, not likely to be prosecuted by them with the requisite energy and perseverance. The safety and happiness of the people, the measure of the success of government according to the Declaration, will accordingly require public attention to higher teaming.

Even so, the early growth of American colleges and universities was the work of associations of private citizens first, chiefly of the churches, and much later, of the states. Here as elsewhere, we should remember that the requirement of public attention need not mean the requirement of public control or regulation. Sometimes it is enough that our statesmen see to it that the people are unhindered by government in their private accomplishment of the common good.

MCCAIN:

By far, I believe the skyrocketing costs of tuition at colleges and universities across our nation is the biggest obstacle facing those who want to continue their education. Over the last 20 years, the average tuition at public educational institutions has increased by 400 percent, while tuition at private institutions has increased more than 440 percent. These are unnerving statistics for parents just starting their families, but they are a terrifying reality for parents with college-bound children.

Congress has taken steps to improve the availability of financial assistance for college tuition. The 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which I supported, made student loans more affordable by increasing the allowable level for Pell Grants and setting the lowest loan interest rates in nearly two decades. The bill also provided loan forgiveness for college students who agreed to teach in high-risk schools, while also strengthening the training of future teachers. In addition, I will continue to support significant funding for literacy-, vocational-, and technical-education programs, and broadening opportunities for high-school and adult students through strong educational initiatives, including the Carl D. Perkins Act.

The new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits provide assistance for students and their families to pay for college. Do you support these new tax credits? As president, would you seek to modify or end them?

BRADLEY.

In general, I do not favor using the tax code to meet public obligations. While I believe that any program that will help open the doors of higher education is a step forward, the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits have the disadvantage that they help only families that have sufficient taxable income to take advantage of them. As my friend Sen. Paul Wellstone has pointed out, 30 percent of families are too poor to get any advantage from these tax credit. As president, in my efforts to open the doors of college, I would not leave these families out.

GORE:

I am proud of the fact that our administration has helped to make the first two years of college more affordable with the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits. We have also increased Pell Grants and decreased interest rates on college loans. As president, I will continue my commitment to expanding these programs. But we must help more families meet the costs of college tomorrow by saving today. As president, I would seek to promote and expand these programs as well as adding to them my National Tuition Savings proposal and the 401(j) accounts that I described in my previous answers.

BUSH:

I believe the existing system of federal aid, which includes student grants, loans, workstudy opportunities, campus-based programs, and tax-code provisions, is too complex and cumbersome. I favor a simple, well-proven delivery system of aid to our college students. The Pell Grant program, for example, has proven to be very effective in opening the doors of opportunity to millions of Americans. I believe we should build on successful programs rather than create new ones.

KEYES:

See response to previous question.

MCCAIN:

I supported the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act that created the Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to make college and higher education more affordable. Both of these programs are currently playing an important role in helping make college and postsecondary education more affordable for many American families, and I will continue to support them.

We must do more to make college affordable for all Americans. That is why I have proposed a tax plan that allows Americans to keep more of their hardearned money to be used for their priorities, including higher education. In addition, I will increase the annual amount families can save in tax-free Education Savings Accounts for college expenses. I will encourage and reward savings and investment by establishing new, tax-deferred Family Security Accounts which can be used for higher education. And I will continue to support funding as generously as possible federal programs, such as Pell Grants, that help make higher education affordable for all Americans.

Is it appropriate for colleges to give a preference in admissions and financial aid to minority students?

BRADLEY:

I strongly support affirmative action, so I would commend rather than penalize colleges that reach out to the greatest number of Americans. I take that position knowing that I was in some way the beneficiary of affirmative action, affirmative actions for athletes. When I went to Princeton, I didn't have the highest test scores, but I was allowed in because they made a judgment about my character and about the fact that I achieved excellence in one thing, basketball, and therefore might be able to do it in academics, which proved to be correct.

Once students meet a minimum standard, why shouldn't the university begin to shape its class based upon the diversity of America? I think that would be a better experience for all students. I believe my view was reinforced by The Shape of the River, a study by former presidents of Harvard and Princeton, the most thorough statistical analysis of the results of affirmative ac- tion in private colleges, which showed people who were admitted to universities on the basis of affirmative action not only did as well as anybody else in school, but went on to graduate school and dis- tinguished themselves in their com- munities as leaders. America is a better place because of that. At some point in the future, perhaps affirmative action will not be necessary, but today, I think it is necessary because we're not yet at the point where, in Toni Morrison's words, "Race exists, but it doesn't matter."

GORE:

Eliminating affirmative action in admissions can drastically reduce the number of minorities who are admitted to toptier universities and graduate schools. America is strong not in spite od our diversity but because of it. College students should experience the benefits of a diverse academic environment, I believe affirmative action helps to close the opportunity gap and moves us towards creating a truly color-blind society.

BUSH:

I support what I call "affirmative access"--not quotas, not double standards, because those divide and balkanize, but access--a fair shot for every single person. Whether awarding government contracts or making college admissions decisions, I believe we have an affirmative duty to offer equal access. Equal access doesn't guarantee equal resuits--but it guarantees that every person will get a fair shot based on their potential and based on their merit. For example, I signed legislation in Texas requiring the top 10 percent of graduates from Texas high schools be automatically accepted in any public university in Texas That means that any student who works hard enough to earn a position in the top 10 percent of his or bet high-school class earns the right to go to college.

KEYES:

The federal government should follow the good example of the State of California, and prohibit, where it has the authority,

preferential treatment by race in higher education.

MCCAIN:

I am very supportive of colleges' and universities' using criteria other than divisive quotas predicated on race or ethnicity to help poor and financially disadvantaged families. Despite our growing economy, the reality today is that many talented and hard-working Americans will never be in a position to reap the benefits of the American dream because of their lack of access to a good education.

As president, I will encourage colleges and universities which have admission policies and initiatives that help the economically disadvantaged. By improving elementary and secondary education for all children, and by making ample financial assistance available to those who need it for college, I believe that our institutions of higher education can best serve all of the groups who make up the rich and diverse American tapestry.

Do you favor abolishing the U.S. Department of Education? Should the federal government play a role in higher education?

BRADLEY:

The U.S. Department of Education is essential. It has played a vital role in affirming our national commitment to education. In higher education, the role of the department and the federal government in providing the key to the door of education, through grants, loans, and other programs, is indispensable and unambiguous.

GORE:

I am not in favor of abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. I respect that education is a state and local responsibility, but I feel strongly that it must also be a national priority with national leadership. The Department of Education supports institutions of higher education in countless ways, especially our minority-serving institution& But more importantly, it also supports the students in these institutions in countless ways. Pell Grants and Work-Study help over four million low-income students attend college. The department's direct-lending program and improvements to the student-loan program have saved students an estimated $8.7-billion on their loans over the last five years while taxpayers have saved over $5-billion through student-loan reform. It has given students more flexibility in managing their student-loan debt, and reduced the national cohort default rate from 22.4 percent seven years ago to a record-low 8.8 percent. I will fight to make lifelong learning an affordable reality for all Americans, and the Department of Education is a good partner in that.

BUSH:

I believe that education is primarily a state and local responsibility. However, I do not favor abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, which can serve a useful purpose in coordinating research and evaluation of education programs, collecting national data, and administering federal programs such as Pell Grants, student grants, Title I and Head Start, which I have proposed moving to the Department of Education.

America's interest is best served by a strong education system--elementary, secondary, and higher education. One crucial component of a successful higher-education system is improving the quality of America's public elementary and secondary schools. Washington does not have all the answers, I trust colleges, local school boards, and families to make the best decisions when it comes to educating our children, However, the federal government should hold states and local school districts accountable for the results they get with federal funding. My comprehensive education proposal would grant states and local districts greater flexibility with federal education funding in return for demonstrating improved student performance. I believe every child in America should he educated and no child should be left behind as we enter the 21st century.

KEYES:

America has no national university and no national ministry of education, and its colleges and universities are better off for it. The country will be better off as well when the Department of Education is eliminated, which it will be if I have anything to say about it. Alone among the prosperous countries, the American higher-educational system is a mix of independent and governmental institutions. This too is a good thing.

Some would argue that the government should simply get out of the business of providing any financial support for higher education. But the prudential course is actually far from clear, and it seems difficult to make the case that the public interest in education is sufficiently met without any government financial help at all. Some common provision for the common good of higher education seems reasonable and is certainly constitutional. The questions are how and how much.

A first, critical fact to note is that even the federal government's financial interest in higher education, which began in earnest with the Morrill Act of 1862, has always included independent institutions. This is one of the few areas where federal aid actually encourages liberty and independence, and for at least two reasons. One is that it rebuts the lie of the teachers' unions about the barrier raised by a largely fictitious "wall of separation" against help for parents of children in religious schools at the K-12 level. The fact of the generations of students who have taken what are, to speak plainly, vouchers to attend Notre Dame and Baylor and Brigham Young University show that government financial assistance to students attending private religious schools raises no constitutional difficulties at all, and that we have always known this and acted accordingly.

The other practical fact, which anyone serious about college aid policies must recognize, is that the large public subsidies to state colleges put the crucial religious and independent sector at a disadvantage. That handicap is partly mitigated by the Pell Grants and student loans that the federal government provides. These forms of aid, though sometimes encrusted with unwise regulations, are still largely respectful of institutional autonomy.

Much more dangerous are the direct grants and programs called "institutional aid." These are the programs that often involve expensive and ideological regulations.

Given all these facts, what is a prudent course for a federal higher-educational policy conducive to liberty? I support sustaining federal aid for higher education, but chiefly because it fosters diversity of institutions, including the church-based ones, and because it empowers parents and students, giving them real choices that the state-subsidized system does not include. In brief, aid FOR, not TO, higher education is the wisest course.

But we must always keep in mind that liberty is much more important than the funding level. It is crucial that government, and the colleges and universities themselves, be vigilant to preserve the inexhaustible source of success in American higher education--indeed, in all American endeavors--which is policies designed on the assumption of the wisdom of the people. Such policies will succeed, while policies that presume ignorance or sloth in the people will fail.

We must all restrain and reduce regulations that compromise institutional autonomy, particularly in the religious colleges, which were the nursery of higher learning in America, and remain a leaven in our national life. Above all, we must beware of ideological regulation. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is" there is liberty... [candidate's ellipsis] and real learning.

The best ways for the national government to promote the general welfare in education lie in modes of support that give students and their families choice and ask them, and the colleges they select, to exercise the virtues of self-government. It would be a terrible mistake to turn the current desire for "accountability" into a regulatory trap; public disclosure of various facts and measures, "sunshine laws," wisely written, may satisfy this desire, but liberty must always he guarded,

We may not always make the perfect choices as we decide what amount and kind of government involvement in higher education is best, but if we are acting from true confidence in the people of the country, and the principles of our regime that support personal self-mastery and political self-government, we will come close enough. When America and its government really base policy on the conviction that the people can act for themselves with foresight and responsibility. the bounty of economic, moral, and spiritual fruit that results is enormous. The heritage of higher education in America is no small part of that bounty, and a policy of wise and restrained cultivation by enlightened statesmen will help ensure that it continues.

MCCAIN:

I strongly believe the Department of Education and the federal government's approach to education must be reformed because we are failing our solemn obligation to properly educate the nation's children. A recent survey showed American high-school students near the bottom worldwide in math and science and dead last in physics. Forty million Americans cannot fill out a job application or read a restaurant menu, much less a computer menu. We must make the necessary reforms to rescue our educational system.

It is wrong that a relatively small percentage of every federal education dollar makes it to the classroom. I have proposed providing federal funding for elementary and secondary education in a single block grant and assuring that more than 90 cents of every federal education dollar goes directly to be used for purposes that local educators are in the best position to prioritize. This would mean a lesser role for the bureaucrats and greater responsibility for educators.

The Department of Education should be reformed so that power flows back to parents, educators, and local authorities that best understand the needs of their children. The secretary of education should be an aggressive national advocate for educational excellence, and the department should be utilized as a clearing-house to share with states what is and is not working for students and teachers across the country.

These reforms would help ensure that applicants to our nation's colleges and universities are better prepared to meet the challenges of higher education.

The Education Department's civil-rights office has warned colleges that if they rely heavily on SAT and ACT scores in admitting students, they may be discriminating on the basis of race, because minority students have lower scores generally than white students do. Do you think colleges should rely less on standardized-test scores? What other admission approaches would you support?

BRADLEY:

See my response to [the affirmative-action question]. I believe that schools should be encouraged to look at the whole individual, rather than reducing people's complex mix of capabilities and talents to a single number. Schools have always sought to build a range of talents, geography, and academic interests. Diversity of all kinds enhances colleges, and diversity of economic, racial, and ethnic background is part of that mix.

GORE:

I am keenly aware of the merits of diversity on college campuses, and I support affirmative action. Some states are relying heavily on high-school grades as an alternative to traditional affirmative-action programs. While these plans provide a partial substitute for affirmative action, they also present significant limitations. For example, the Florida plan, as currently proposed, will not guarantee admission at Florida's leading universities. Consequently, there is likely to be a significant decline in diversity at those institutions.

I applaud all efforts to open the doors of higher education to students, but I personally support admissions programs that consider race or gender in a balanced, fair, and effective manner consistent with Supreme Court law. Such programs, if carefully designed, improve the educational experience for all students and should not be curtailed.

BUSH:

The Department of Education should not dictate admissions policies to colleges. Some say it is unfair to hold disadvantaged students to rigorous standards. I say it is discrimination to require anything less--the soft bigotry of low expectations. I support efforts to reach out to students from all backgrounds--through programs like the one I instituted in Texas requiring the top 10 percent of graduates from Texas high schools be automatically accepted in any public university in Texas We also have an obligation to demand accountability from our elementary and secondary schools and to make sure every child is being given opportunities that will better prepare them for college.

KEYES:

The federal government has no role whatsoever in regulation of the testing and other admissions policies of colleges and universities, except to see that they are not directly race-preferential. I would not presume to mandate my own judgments in this area, but I will say that I think it wise and humane to consider both objective test scores and grades, and also to try to obtain, by essays, interviews, and recommendations, a sense of the virtues and talents of the applicants.

MCCAIN:

While I believe standardized-test scores can be a valid measure of an individual's preparedness for college, I support colleges and universities who may use different criteria to evaluate student applicants. Admission should be based on merit, while colleges and universities should develop programs designed to help poor and financially disadvantaged applicants.

The most important step we can take is to assure that all children have access to a quality elementary and secondary education that will provide them with the opportunity to compete on an equal basis for admission to any of our nation's excellent colleges and universities. This is why I have been such a staunch advocate of school vouchers, teacher-competency standards, and efforts to provide states and local school districts with the flexibility to use federal educational dollars in ways that best suit the unique needs of their students.

Has the federal government gone too far in enforcing Title IX, the federal gender-bias law, in college sports? Should federal law assume that colleges must have an equal proportion of male and female students playing on sports teams?

BRADLEY:

I am a long-time supporter of Title IX and women's sports. In 1990, legislation I proposed asked colleges to reveal the graduation rates of student-athletes compared to all students, and one of the most interesting statistics to come out of that legislation was that women athletes were much more likely to graduate than nonathletes. I believe that this demonstrates the educational value of a balanced athletic program. I am disturbed that many colleges have chosen to meet Title IX by cutting nonrevenue sports for men rather than expanding opportunities for women, and would encourage colleges to focus on expanding opportunities for all students.

GORE:

It is important that schools provide women with the same variety and quality of sports that men are now provided with. The intention of the law is to increase access and variety to women, and not to take opportunity away from men. However, some schools have chosen to cut men's teams to meet this requirement. It must be left up to the individual colleges to decide how they wish to handle compliance with the law. While some institutions may elect to cut men's sports to comply with the substantial-proportionality provision of the law, numerous other factors may contribute to this decision, such as financial viability, a team's likelihood of staying competitive, changes in athletic-conference priorities, to name a few. I continue to support the intent of Title IX. As a father of three daughters and one son, I would like to think that all of my children will have equal opportunity as they go through college, and beyond.

BUSH:

I support Title IX. Title IX has opened up opportunities for young women in both academics and sports, and I think that's terrific I do not support a system of quotas or strict proportionality that pits one group against another. We should support a reasonable approach to Title IX that seeks to expand opportunities for women rather than destroy existing men's teams.

KEYES:

Common sense, which acknowledges different interests and talents between the sexes, should rule here. The federal government is more likely to act rigidly and ideologically than to do good; it should leave institutions alone in this area.

MCCAIN:

In 1972, when Title IX was enacted, women were at a great disadvantage in many facets of our society. It was designed to provide equal opportunities to women in both academics and athletics through a balanced combination of access and funding.

The difficult decisions that are currently facing educational institutions stem mainly from the courts' often-contradictory interpretations of Title IX Some courts have ruled that equal access to athletic programs requires equal funding for men's and women's athletics. As a result, many schools have adopted policies of strictly equal funding for mate and female athletic programs. Unfortunately, many popular athletic programs must then be cut, because the overall amount of funding available for athletics programs will not sustain identical men's and women's programs in every sport.

I support the law's intent of promoting equal opportunities to all students in a manner that does not unfairly penalize or limit opportunities for any students. I am hopeful that we can work together to find ways to make Title IX work to accomplish its original intent without causing the elimination of athletic programs.

Many members of Congress have endorsed doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health by 2002, to increase America's lead in biomedical research. Do you support the doubling goal? As president, would you propose funds to reach that target in your executive budgets?

BRADLEY:

In my health-care proposal, I have proposed expanding the National Institutes of Health to create a new research institute on community health and prevention, to be funded at $100-million a year. I am a strong believer in the importance of both pure and applied research to enhance our ability to understand, prevent, and treat illness.

GORE:

I have long supported increases in biomedical research. I believe that with the completion of the Human Genome Project, we have an opportunity to revolutionize the way we detect and treat many diseases, from diabetes to cancer to AIDS. One of my first speeches in this campaign focused on ways to combat cancer for the 21st century, including proposing to double the cancer budget over the next five years with comparable increases in other research areas. I believe we need significant increases in biomedical research to make sure we have a healthier America in the 21st century.

BUSH:

I Support the recent efforts by Republicans in Congress to increase both public-and private-sector research opportunities through increased funding for the National Institutes of Health and by making the research-anddevelopment tax credit permanent.

KEYES:

The principles that govern this matter are much like those that inform wise policy in the case of NASA, Where there is a need for funds for long-range, fundamental research not likely to be undertaken by individuals and other institutions, there is a modest but important federal role. Determination of the appropriate amounts is not really the proper business of a presidential campaign.

MCCAIN:

We should fund N.I.H. as generously as possible in keeping with the importance of its mission and taking into account available resources and overall budgetary demands and priorities and I have championed legislation to dramatically increase medical-research funding. As president, I will ensure an appropriate level of federal funding for the important medical-research activities of N.I.H., as well as provide incentives for private-sector support for timely and meaningful research into the causes, effective treatments, and potential cures for diseases. In addition, I will ensure that N.I.H. dis- tributes research dollars on the basis of scientific merit, as determined by independent experts.

The nation's academic medical centers and teaching hospitals say they are suffering financially because of increased health-care costs and limits on federal support imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Would you support increasing federal spending on teaching hospitals, or should they find their own way?

BRADLEY:

The 1997 Balanced Budget Act included Medicare cuts that have had a devastating impact on teaching hospitals. My healthcare plan will significantly reduce the burden of uncompensated care that teaching hospitals have home.

GORE:

Our teaching hospitals are one of the most important resources in our nation's healthcare system. I believe that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 had policies that had negative, unintended consequences on many of the providers that serve the Medicare program, including our teaching hospitals. That is why I fought hard this year to pass legislation that reversed some of these changes and gave back money to our nation's teaching hospitals. The Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 provided $16billion over five years to Medicare to address some of these policy changes. I have also proposed dedicating over $300-billion to keep the Medicare Trust Fund strong as baby boomers retire and the size of the Medicare population doubles. We owe it to America's seniors and the institutions that serve them to keep Medicare strong for the future. That is my commitment.

BUSH:

I recognize the unique role teaching hospitals play not only in the training of our medical students, but also in the care of patients. Many times, teaching hospitals are located in medically underserved, urban areas and are the only source of medical care for many people. I believe the graduatemedical-education program is a worthwhile function of federal government. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 proved that graduate-medical-education funding should not be held hostage to the need to curb Medicare spending. I will work with Congress to find a continuous funding stream that is not at the mercy of the financial forecast of the Medicare Trust Fund.

KEYES:

The same principles govern the answer to this question [as the question on the N.I.H.], except it should be noted that funding the training of physicians is not a proper federal responsibility. Some important research carried out at teaching hospitals may, however, have such a claim.

MCCAIN:

Teaching hospitals and academic medical centers are an important component in our nation's health-care system. However, increasing funding for these institutions under the current system would further exacerbate the financial woes of the already-strapped Medicare Trust Fund.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created funding concerns for teaching hospitals and academic medical centers. To address these concerns, a dialogue among all interested parties must occur to best determine the most effective and efficient sources and ways to further fund these institutions without failing to preserve and protect the long-term solvency of the Medicare system.

Who are two or three figures in intellectual life today whom you respect, and why?

BRADLEY:

[No response.]

GORE:

[No response.]

BUSH:

Myron Magnet, James Q. Wilson, and Paul Johnson, because they articulate ways that a conservative philosophy is a compassionate philosophy.

KEYES:

My teacher, Allan Bloom, had a formative effect on me in many regards, among them his willingness to ask the deepest questions, study the worthiest texts and authors, and seek truth even from those with whom he did not agree.

Professor Harry Jaffa, the Lincoln scholar, has helped illuminate the proficiency of Lincoln's thought and statesmanship for me and for all Americans.

I might also mention the current pope, John Paul II, whose influence on the entire human race in these last 20 years has been overwhelmingly beneficial. Americans should take particular note of his fusion of Catholic social principle with the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, and his application of these notions to the life issues and the family.

MCCAIN:

I respect Bill Bennett because he speaks with a clear and moral voice about the values and virtues on which America rest.

The thinkers and innovators behind the Internet, including Robert Kahn, Vinton Cerf, and others.