[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 8660-8661]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   INTRODUCTION OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 19, 2000

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Higher 
Education Technical Amendments of 2000. On May 8, 1998, the House 
passed the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 on a bipartisan basis. 
That legislation was subsequently enacted on October 7, 1998, and 
greatly benefited students by providing the lowest student loan 
interest rates in almost 20 years, as well as by making needed 
improvements to important student aid programs like Work-Study, Pell 
Grants, and TRIO.
  At that time I congratulated the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. McKeon, 
the Ranking Member, Mr. Clay, and the former Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, Mr. Kildee, for a job well done. The past year and a half 
has shown that praise was well placed. Millions of students have since 
benefited from their efforts, and the minimal number of technical 
amendments that are needed is testimony to the fact that the bill was 
well crafted.
  Since that time, the Department of Education has concluded its first 
round of negotiated rule making, and issued final regulations to 
reflect the changes. We have had a chance to analyze the implementation 
of the law with respect to congressional intent. In most cases our 
intent was adhered to, but in a few important instances it was not.
  The legislation we are introducing today makes necessary technical 
changes as well

[[Page 8661]]

as a few policy changes that we believe are necessary to implement the 
Act as intended. There are also a number of policy changes that were 
recommended to us that have not been included in this bill, and I 
expect that some will be disappointed at their exclusion. However, in 
crafting this legislation, we have worked to ensure that the bill is 
bipartisan, that it is fully paid for, that it will benefit students, 
and that it will be signed into law.
  For example, I feel very strongly that the Department is not 
following our intent with respect to direct loan origination fees. Now, 
before this is taken out of context, let me be clear; I support better 
terms and conditions for students. The 1998 amendments were designed to 
provide students with the best possible deal under very tight budget 
constraints, and I believe we succeeded in doing that. However, the law 
is very clear in directing the Secretary to collect a four percent 
origination fee on direct student loans.
  This is confirmed in legal opinions from the Congressional Research 
Service and the Comptroller General. It was not our intent to change 
that, and in my view the Department's action sets a very dangerous 
precedent. The fact that this legislation does not address this issue 
should not be taken as an endorsement of the Department's actions.
  The legislation we are introducing today does make a needed change to 
the ``return of federal funds'' provisions in the Higher Education Act 
to help students who withdraw before the end of a term. Specifically, 
it corrects the Department's interpretation and clarifies that students 
are never required to return more than 50 percent of the grant funds 
they received. Again, I know there are those who would like us to go 
further. However, doing so would have mandatory spending implications 
that we have no way to pay for, and in many instances would result in 
students leaving school with increased student loan debt.
  This bill will also modify the campus crime reporting provisions of 
the Act to provide parents and students with information on schools' 
policies regarding the handling of reports on missing students. 
Specifically, information will be provided on a school's policy on 
parental notification as well as its policy for investigating such 
reports and cooperating with local police. I have a long history of 
trying to ensure that parents have the information they need to make 
sure that their children are safe on campus, and I have worked closely 
with my colleague, Mr. Andrews, to craft this version of ``Bryan's 
Law'' so that it gives parents this information without overly 
burdening schools.
  Finally, I would also note that we have included the provisions of 
H.R. 3629, the Tribal College Amendments, which we marked up last month 
and which passed the House under suspension of the rules. These 
provisions will streamline grant applications for Tribal Colleges under 
Title III and allow institutions to apply for a new grant without 
waiting for two years. We have included them again here because we are 
uncertain whether the other body will act on H.R. 3629 in a timely 
manner. I also note that this bill contains similar treatment for 
Hispanic Serving Institutions under Title V, and I thank our colleague, 
Mark Green of Wisconsin, for bringing this issue to our attention.
  I also want to thank Mr. Clay, Mr. McKeon, and Mr. Martinez for their 
efforts in crafting this bipartisan legislation. This bill will not 
satisfy everyone completely. But it does make necessary technical and 
policy changes that will improve the implementation of the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998, and it does so in a way that will benefit 
students and that is likely to be enacted. I urge my colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

                          ____________________