April 1, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 56 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S2120-S2121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Warren, and Mr. 
        Murphy):
  S. 968. A bill to provide for institutional risk-sharing in the 
Federal student loan programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we all recognize that a postsecondary 
education is required for most family-sustaining, middle-class jobs, 
and that an educated workforce is essential to a modern, productive 
economy. A report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and 
the Workforce found that college-level intensive business services have 
replaced manufacturing as the largest sector in the U.S. economy, and 
that while college-educated workers make up only 32 percent of the 
workforce, they now produce more than 50 percent of the Nation's 
economic output, up from 13 percent in 1967. A college degree also pays 
off, with one recent analysis estimating that the typical college 
graduate will earn $900,000 more of their lifetime than the typical 
high school graduate.
  Yet just as there is growing recognition that postsecondary education 
is indispensable in the modern economy, families are being required to 
shoulder growing debt burdens that threaten access to college and their 
financial health. According to an analysis by the Federal Reserve, 
student loan debt per capita doubled between 2005 and 2014, rising from 
$5,000 to $10,000. This is a growing drag on our economy. As student 
loan debt has grown, young adults have put off buying homes or cars, 
starting a family, saving for retirement, or launching new businesses. 
They have literally mortgaged their economic future.
  We know that student loan borrowers are struggling. The Secretary of 
Education just testified before the Senate Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee that 43 percent of 
the student loans in the nearly $1.5 trillion Federal student loan 
portfolio are in default, more than 30 days delinquent, or negatively 
amortized. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reports that the 
balance of defaulted loans now exceeds $120 billion. More than 8 
million borrowers currently have a loan in default.
  Default is catastrophic for student loan borrowers. Only in rare 
instances can the debt be discharged in bankruptcy. The Federal 
government has the power to withhold tax refunds, garnish wages, and 
even garnish Social Security benefits to collect defaulted student 
loans.
  We have seen the costs to students and taxpayers when institutions 
are not held accountable. Corinthian Colleges and ITT are two examples 
of institutions that failed their students while benefitting from 
Federal student aid. Their fraudulent business practices eventually led 
to their demise, but not before leaving their students and taxpayers on 
the hook for millions of dollars in student loan debt. More recently, 
we have seen the closure of Argosy University, South University, and 
the Art Institutes, all operated by the Dream Center, leave roughly 
26,000 students in the lurch.
  We cannot wait until an institution is catastrophically failing its 
students before taking action. Institutions need greater financial 
incentives to act before default rates rise. Simply put, we cannot 
tackle the student loan debt crisis without States and institutions 
stepping up and taking greater responsibility for college costs and 
student borrowing.
  That is why I am pleased to reintroduce the Protect Student Borrowers 
Act with Senators Durbin, Warren, and Murphy. Our legislation seeks to 
ensure there is more skin in the game when it comes to student loan 
debt by setting stronger market incentives for colleges and 
universities to provide better and more affordable education to 
students, which should in turn help put the brakes on rising student 
loan defaults.
  The Protect Student Borrowers Act would hold colleges and 
universities accountable for student loan defaults by requiring them to 
repay a percentage of defaulted loans. Only institutions that have one-
third or more of their students borrow would be included in the bill's 
risk-sharing requirements based on their cohort default rate. Risk-
sharing requirements would kick in when the default rate exceeds 15 
percent. As the institution's default rate rises, so too will the 
institution's risk-share payment.
  The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for 
institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt burdens 
and reduce default rates. Colleges and universities can reduce or 
eliminate their payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan 
management plan. The Secretary may waive or reduce the payments for 
institutions whose mission is to serve low-income and minority 
students, such as community colleges, Historically Black Institutions, 
or Hispanic-Serving Institutions--if they are making progress in their 
student loan management plans.
  The risk-sharing payments would be invested in helping struggling 
borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and increasing 
Pell Grants at institutions that enroll a high percentage of Pell Grant 
recipients and have low default rates.
  With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair 
that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program.
  We need to tackle student loan debt and college affordability from 
multiple angles. All stakeholders in the system must do their part. 
With the Protect Student Borrowers Act, we are providing the incentives 
and resources for

[[Page S2121]]

institutions to take more responsibility to address college 
affordability and student loan debt and improve student outcomes. I 
urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and look forward to working 
with them to include it and other key reforms in the upcoming 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Coons):
  S. 969. A bill to improve quality and accountability for educator 
preparation programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we know that the quality of teachers and 
principals are two of the most important in-school factors related to 
student achievement. Yet the pipeline into the profession is in 
disrepair. A report from the American Association of Colleges of 
Teacher Education showed that the number of education degrees awarded 
peaked at 200,000 per year in the 1970s and has dwindled to fewer than 
100,000 today. This is at a time when all fifty States have reported 
experiencing statewide teacher shortages in at least one teaching area 
for the 2016-17 or 2017-18 school year. If we want to improve our 
schools, it is essential that we invest in the professional preparation 
of teachers, principals, and other educators. As such, today, I am 
reintroducing the Educator Preparation Reform Act with my colleagues 
Senators Casey and Coons to ensure that the Federal government 
continues to be a partner in addressing this critical national need.
  The impact of educator shortages falls the hardest on our most 
vulnerable students in our highest need communities. Rhode Island is no 
exception, with Providence, the largest school district, facing an 
acute shortage of teachers certified to teach English language 
learners. My home State has also reported shortages in special 
education, science, math, world languages, and school nurses.
  We cannot solve this problem without improving both teacher and 
principal preparation. We need to make sure that our educator 
preparation programs are worthy of the professionals entering the field 
and the students they will serve. The Educator Preparation Reform Act 
is a key part of the solution.
  Our legislation builds on the successful Teacher Quality Partnership 
Program, which I helped author in the 1998 reauthorization of the 
Higher Education Act. It continues the partnership between high-need 
school districts, institutions of higher education, and educator 
preparation programs to reform pre-service programs based on the unique 
needs of the partners. Among the key changes are specific attention and 
emphasis on principals and the addition of a residency program for new 
principals. Improving instruction is a team effort, with principals at 
the helm. This bill better connects teacher preparation with principal 
preparation. The Educator Preparation Reform Act will also allow 
partnerships to develop preparation programs for other areas of 
instructional need, such as for school librarians, counselors, or other 
academic support professionals.
  The bill streamlines the accountability and reporting requirements 
for teacher preparation programs to provide greater transparency on key 
quality measures such as admissions standards, requirements for 
clinical practice, placement of graduates, retention in the field of 
teaching, and teacher performance, including student-learning outcomes. 
All programs--whether traditional or alternative routes to 
certification--will report on the same measures.
  Under our legislation, States will be required to identify at-risk 
and low-performing programs and provide them with technical assistance 
and a timeline for improvement. States would be encouraged to close 
programs that do not improve.
  Our legislation also makes important improvements to the TEACH 
Grants. It focuses the grants on the later years of teacher 
preparation, reducing the potential of the grants being converted to 
loans if a student decides to change majors. Additionally, it allows 
prorating the amount of grants converted to loans, giving teachers 
credit for partially completing the service requirement. Finally, it 
requires the Department of Education to establish an appeals process 
for grants wrongly converted to loans and to report to Congress 
annually on the number of conversions and appeals.
  We have been fortunate to work with many stakeholders on this 
legislation. Organizations that have endorsed the Educator Preparation 
Reform Act include: the American Association of Colleges for Teacher 
Education, American Federation of Teachers, Higher Education Consortium 
for Special Education, Hispanic Association of Colleges and 
Universities, National Association of Elementary School Principals, 
National Association of Secondary School Principals, National 
Association of State Directors of Special Education, National Education 
Association, Public Advocacy for Kids, and the Teacher Education 
Division of the Council for Exceptional Children.
  I look forward to working to incorporate this legislation into the 
upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I urge my 
colleagues to join us in this effort and support this legislation.

                          ____________________