[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 92 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8067-S8068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                HIGHER EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1998

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to 
support S. 1882, the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. This bill 
comes at a time when our nation's shifting job market has greatly 
increased student demand for post-secondary education. However, for 
many families in Kentucky and across the nation, the rising cost of 
tuition creates a real barrier to attending college. A majority of 
college students today rely upon some form of financial assistance in 
order to meet these escalating costs. For the first time in decades, 
loans constitute the largest part of student financial-aid packages. As 
the loan burden increases, students and their families are seeking 
greater choice in financial resources for higher education.
  Making a college education more affordable has always been a priority 
of mine, and for the past several years I have introduced legislation 
to provide tax incentives to families who save for college. In fact, my 
legislation, which allows tax-free education savings in state-sponsored 
savings plans for education purposes, was included in the Parent and 
Student Savings Account Plus Act, which Congress approved earlier this 
year by a strong margin. The House and Senate approved this essential 
legislation in response to growing public interest in federal policies 
that facilitate personal planning and investment in education, and to 
provide students with greater choices in both academic programming and 
financial aid resources. However, this measure and similar initiatives 
have been heavily criticized by the Clinton Administration.
  For example, throughout the HEA reauthorization process, President 
Clinton has repeatedly tried to limit students' financial options by 
creating a single-lender system run by the U.S. Department of 
Education. Banks, credit unions, and other qualified lenders currently 
use their financial expertise and experience in loan management to 
provide college loans for students and parents through the Federal 
Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), while the U.S. Department of 
Education operates the Direct Lending program through participating 
colleges and universities. The Clinton Administration heralded the 
consumer benefits that would result from the competition between FFELP 
and the Direct Lending program during its original authorization in the 
1993 Budget. Now, President Clinton has turned away from his original 
advocacy for greater choice in favor of making the U.S. Department of 
Education the sole lender for student loans.
  Since its creation, the Direct Lending program's reputation has 
become synonymous with slow, inefficient service. The Department simply 
does not have the personnel or experience necessary to efficiently 
process the high volume of loans demanded by students. For example, in 
1996, the processing of 900,000 student aid applications submitted to 
the Department were delayed by severe management problems. Just last 
year Congress was forced to pass the Emergency Student Loan 
Consolidation Act in response to the Department's stoppage in 
processing applications for direct loan consolidations. If students had 
been limited to one lending option, the Department's backlog and 
organizational problems

[[Page S8068]]

would have denied many students access to the student loans necessary 
for their enrollment in school.
  Based on the Department's struggle to meet its responsibility to our 
nation's students, concerned members of the House and Senate have 
worked diligently to prevent another crisis in student access to 
college loans. Not all colleges and universities participate in the 
Direct Lending program, and the interest rate index adjustments 
supported by the 1993 Budget threaten to eliminate private lenders from 
the student loan market. Without the aid of private lenders, many 
students will be left without necessary financial assistance. S. 1882 
rejects Clinton's repeated attempts to strangle consumer choice by 
revising the interest rate index on student loans, and improves the 
service and accountability standards of guaranty agencies who 
participate in the FFELP program.
  The guaranty agency model included in this bill directs agencies to 
utilize the advantages of the Internet and other technological advances 
in order to increase the speed and efficiency of the student loan 
process. S. 1882 also increases the financial responsibility guaranty 
agencies must bear when a student loan goes into default. All lending 
organizations--public and private--should be held up to high standards 
of performance and fiscal integrity. By increasing agency 
accountability, this bill makes sure that students across the country 
have access to qualified, responsible lending agencies. By streamlining 
the loan process and weeding out irresponsible lenders, S. 1182 
strengthens the ability of reliable agencies to offer low-interest 
student loans.
  S. 1182 increases institutional accountability not only for lenders, 
but for institutions of higher education as well. A solid primary and 
secondary education is the base upon which future academic success is 
built, and a highly qualified teaching force is an essential component 
of a child's educational foundation. S. 1182 raises the bar with which 
we measure teachers by holding institutions of higher education that 
prepare teachers for classroom instruction responsible for the caliber 
of teachers they graduate.
  From early childhood through post-secondary school, a child has no 
greater resource than a knowledgeable, skillful teacher in the 
classroom, and S. 1882 holds both states and institutions of higher 
education responsible for placing the best teachers in our public 
schools. Through the creation of Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants, S. 
1882 focuses on state-based reform of the teacher certification process 
to ensure that new teachers are qualified both in instructional skills 
and the subject matter which they teach, and to hold institutions of 
higher education accountable for properly preparing teachers for the 
classroom. These grants also give states the flexibility to financially 
reward teachers whose students have high levels of academic 
performance, and the authority to remove unqualified teachers from the 
classroom. In addition, S. 1882 allows states to develop alternative 
certification options for college graduates and capable individuals 
from other professional and occupational backgrounds who are interested 
in teaching.
  Students face many other barriers in addition to cost when preparing 
for acceptance into a post-secondary school. Many first-generation and 
low-income students have educational needs that are not met by routine 
classroom instruction. S. 1882 provides support services and counseling 
programs for these students through the reauthorization of federal TRIO 
programs. For years, students across Kentucky have benefited from the 
Upward Bound program, which assists disadvantaged students in gaining 
entrance into higher education and completing a course of study. 
Unfortunately, many Upward Bound students are forced to choose between 
summer educational programs and part-time employment. S. 1882 will 
enable these students to pursue challenging academic programs by 
expanding Upward Bound to include summer work study. The Talent Search 
program is also expanded to introduce low-income students to careers in 
which students from disadvantaged backgrounds are under-represented. I 
am pleased that S. 1882 reauthorizes and strengthens these two programs 
which are highly valued by students throughout Kentucky.
  The influence of institutions of higher education is felt far beyond 
the classroom as many colleges and universities are providing long-term 
leadership for communities undergoing an economic transition. In 
Kentucky, the higher education community has done an exemplary job of 
molding its curricula to meet the economic needs of the Commonwealth. 
The University of Kentucky and Louisville have established world-class 
research programs and have extended their community recruitment and 
outreach programs. Many of Kentucky's regional colleges and private 
schools are also implementing programs complimentary to the goals of 
excellence outlined by their home communities and the state government. 
Kentucky's community colleges and technical schools recently integrated 
their academic and training programs to create a seamless system of 
post-secondary education. Such efforts to achieve cooperation and 
quality in post-secondary education will produce great benefits for 
Kentucky students in the years to come.
  By recognizing the inextricable link between future economic 
viability and higher education, Kentucky is a prime example of the 
direction in which higher education in the United States is headed. 
With this bill, we have the opportunity to open the doors of higher 
education to a greater number of students than ever before, at a time 
when post-secondary education is at a premium. As the summer draws to a 
close, and another school year is about to begin, I am pleased that 
ninety-five of my colleagues joined me in recognition of the important 
role education plays in shaping our nation's future by supporting S. 
1882.

                          ____________________