[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 53 (Thursday, May 2, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3792-S3793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             COLLEGE LOANS AND THE COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the 
Senate and the American people one of the great challenges this country 
is facing again, and the failure of the Bush administration to respond 
to this challenge, and that is the cost of higher education. I don't 
think there is anyone or any family who is watching the U.S. Senate 
this morning who isn't concerned about what the cost is for higher 
education--for their children, who are in college at the present time, 
or parents whose children have gone to college and endured the debt.
  It is absolutely extraordinary to me, at this time of real crisis, in 
terms of availability of college for working, middle-income families 
that the Bush administration has now suggested a way that will make the 
cost of college education even higher and the debts even deeper. I draw 
again to the attention of the Senate this AP story from last week, 
where the White House suggested $5.2 billion in savings from Federal 
student loans.
  White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels proposed savings to House 
Speaker Dennis Hastert. Among Daniels' proposed savings is to require 
college students and graduates who wish to consolidate their 
Government-backed education to use variable interest rates. That means 
that the Bush administration is saying to college students, rather than 
being able to take advantage of the low-interest rates at the present 
time, they will have to take their chances on the variable interest 
rates.
  What is that going to cost for the average student and the average 
family? The average family in this country who borrows ends up with a 
$17,000 debt. In my State, it is about $23,000 or $24,000. The best 
estimate is that it is going to cost that family at least $3,000; if it 
is going to be over a 30-year period, it will be an additional $10,000. 
Do families understand this proposal of the Bush administration?
  Now, we are, as Democrats, extraordinarily concerned. We have sent a 
letter to the administration. Our committee, the Education Committee, 
has invited Mr. Daniels to testify on this particular issue, so that we 
can better understand what the reasons and the rationale are--other 
than that the Federal Government can effectively take back that money 
from the students and use it for the tax cut for the wealthiest 
individuals. This is a tax increase on working families that are going 
to school.
  Now what has been the administration's response? The Democrats are 
virtually unanimous. There are 46 of our Democratic colleagues who have 
said they will stand in the way and will not permit it. We will have a 
legislative fix, and we will not permit it. We are telling the 
administration that.
  What has been the reaction of the administration? If we look at the 
reaction of the administration, according to Deputy Education Secretary 
William Hansen, they yesterday dismissed the Democratic criticism as 
incredibly disingenuous.
  It is not the Democrats who are disingenuous. It is the Bush 
administration's proposal to raise the cost of going to higher 
education.
  Is this something that we say is the cost of higher education? I 
refer again to a story that is in the New York Times--and there is a 
similar story in the Washington Post this morning--``Greater Share of 
Income is Committed to Education.''

       Poor and middle class families have had to use a steadily 
     larger portion of their income to attend the Nation's public 
     universities over the last 2 decades as State spending for 
     higher education has lagged behind. All of these trends are 
     unhealthy for the future of educational opportunity in this 
     country, says Patrick Callan, President of the National 
     Center for Higher Education.

  That is not a Democratic Senator. This is the president of the 
National Center for Higher Education in San Jose, CA, which 
commissioned the study with the support of the Ford Foundation and the 
Pew Charitable Trust. These are independent studies. These are 
independent studies, and still the administration stays the course and 
says, well, even in spite of this fact, we are going to even make it 
more difficult and more complex.
  We reject that at the outset. I bring to the attention of the Members 
a response that Ari Fleischer had yesterday from the White House when 
he was asked about fixed versus variable rates. Mr. Fleischer's 
response:

       Well, we are just going to continue to work with Congress 
     to find a solution. The idea was always a voluntary one, 
     never a mandatory one.

  Mr. Fleischer better understand what this whole proposal is about 
because this is poppycock. What is mandatory, according to the 
administration, is they get the variable rate. What they are taking 
away from the student is the opportunity to take advantage of the low 
rate. It is still a live consideration, and I do not know who Mr. 
Fleischer is talking to in the Congress to find a solution.
  He also makes reference to the fact about what the administration is 
doing in funding and education. I, again, remind the Senate about where 
the administration is on its budget now and in the future on education. 
This year the President is requesting $50 billion in discretionary 
appropriations for the Department of Education, an increase of $1.4 
billion, or 2.8 percent. That is what the administration is suggesting.
  If we look at last year's budget conference report, on page 51, they 
outline the baseline estimates which do not reflect any specific policy 
except for defense. President Bush's budget authority for the year 
2002--this report assumes that discretionary function levels grow by 
inflation.
  What is that saying? That over the next 9 years, this is the Bush 
proposal on funding education: zero. This is what they say.
  Now, we are shortchanging the children in this country. If we look 
back at this last year, primarily at the behest of the Democrats, we 
saw an increase in the elementary and secondary education. The proposal 
of the Bush administration is zero in the outyears and is now 
attempting to tamper with the interest rates to make it more costly. 
Now, that is an intolerable position for the Bush administration to 
have.

  There is a failure to fund the elementary and secondary education 
adequately, and they are putting an additional tax on every family in 
this country sending their children to school. Sixty-three percent of 
the students who attend higher education are borrowing at this time. 
The average cost across the Nation is $17,000. Every family, if their 
proposal goes forward, is going to pay at least $3,000 more.
  We are not going to tolerate it. It is difficult for many of us, who 
thought we were going to see a strong commitment in the area of 
education, to understand in a budget of over $2 trillion why the 
administration has to target working families and middle-income 
families. I do not understand that.
  They say education is important. They have over a $2 trillion budget 
and they cannot find the funding in the areas of education. I want to 
let our colleagues know we are going to do everything in resisting this 
proposal. From an educational point of view, it makes no sense. From a 
national interest point of view, investing in education and our 
children is investing in our future.
  I see my colleague and friend, the Senator from Michigan, who is 
doing such an outstanding job on bringing to the attention of the 
Senate the importance of prescription drugs. I commend her for her 
eloquence, persistence, and leadership in this area. I tell her that on 
behalf of all the people of Massachusetts. We are enormously grateful 
to her for bringing these facts to the attention of the membership. I 
hope she will address the proposal we had from the House Republicans 
yesterday on the issue of prescription drugs. I think myself it is more 
of a series of platitudes rather than a core program. They

[[Page S3793]]

refuse to commit the resources which are necessary. It seems to me that 
a bus ticket to Canada will probably save seniors more than the 
Republican proposal. I am going to be interested in her reaction to 
that, and her statements about the importance of assuring our senior 
citizens that a prescription drug program be a part of our Medicare 
system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MILLER). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts for his continued advocacy on behalf of all 
of the issues that directly affect our families every day. Speaking 
first to the issue of education as the mother of a 26-year-old who has 
completed college--I feel as if I own a part of one of the buildings at 
that great university, the University of Michigan--and my daughter who 
is now in college, I completely understand and share the deep concerns 
Senator Kennedy has about the proposals that will essentially put 
another $10,000 of tax on middle- and low-income families over the 
course of taking out student loans to put their children through 
college.
  It seems to me, as we are talking about the national interest, the 
importance of national security, that a critical piece is an educated 
workforce and an educated citizenry. I cannot imagine who was thinking 
up this proposal at the White House, but I hope they understand we are 
going to stand together to stop any effort that will add costs to 
families who are working to put their children through college.

                          ____________________