State in the House: Bill Passed Committee, but Vote Not Scheduled
Introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity through Education Reform (PROSPER) Act cleared the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the United States House of Representatives on December 13, 2017. It did so despite claims by Democrats—and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities—that they had been shut out of the process.
Among other pertinent provisions, the PROSPER Act:
- adopts a single definition of “institution of higher education,” eliminating for most purposes the distinctions between public and private nonprofit institutions and proprietary institutions;
- effectively requires the Department of Education to treat programs that are not correspondence courses and that satisfy the current definition of “distance education” programs the same as traditional brick-and-mortar programs;
- prohibits the DOE from defining any term in the Higher Education Act of 1965 (“HEA”), through regulation or otherwise;
- repeals the borrower defense regulations promulgated by the DOE on November 1, 2016;
- bars the DOE from developing, administering, or creating a ratings system for institutions of higher education;
- expands the ways by which institutions may show that they are financially responsible for purposes of Title IV program participation;
- forbids the DOE from prescribing the specific standards that an accreditor is required to implement and defers such standards to the discretion of each accrediting agency;
- simplifies the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (“FAFSA”);
- eliminates loan origination fees for all student borrowers;
- eliminates the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program for new borrowers; and
- caps annual loan limits for various categories of students.
According to its supporters, the PROSPECT Act would improve higher education in at least two major ways. First, it focuses resources on helping Americans with the greatest financial need. Second, it expands the choices for students who need financial aid rather than steering them overwhelmingly towards community colleges.
While opponents have praised certain aspects of the bill, from its simplification of the FAFSA and linking of accreditation with outcomes for students, they have also criticized its limitations on student financial aid, removal of protections for students, and failure to incorporate rigorous data collecting requirements. Opponents also cite a February 7 report by the Congressional Budget Office that claimed that college students would lose $15 billion in federal student aid over the next decade if the PROSPER Act becomes law.
As of March 8, the full House has not voted on the PROSPER Act.
The text, as well as other legislative resources, including speeches from both sides, can be found here.
State in the Senate: Hearings and Debates
In contrast to the House, the process in the Senate has involved somewhat more give-and-take in considering the companion bill to the PROSPER Act. The Senate version was proposed by Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a former Secretary of Education. By February 6, his Committee had held four hearings on the problems posed by the rising cost of higher education and the nation’s increasingly troubled borrowers.
As in the House, partisan fault lines quickly emerged. However, unlike the House committee, a more robust debate has occurred. Like his House colleagues, Alexander has endorsed the “Bennett hypothesis” (named after former Secretary of Education William Bennett), which faults growing federal student aid for mounting college costs. For Alexander, the bottom line is simply, “How can we get the Federal Government out of the way so that we can meet our students’ needs?”
Alexander has urged his colleagues to focus on revisions to simplify the student aid process and redirect money to Pell Grants for low-income students.
In response, Committee Democrats expressed approval of streamlining grants and loans, but with the caveats that the total amount of aid must be preserved and that quality protections must be put in place for students and taxpayers.
Alexander, who has long worked with the Committee’s Democratic leader, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), saw a consensus emerging over the need for “simpler, more effective regulations to make it easier for students to pay for college and to pay back their loans; reducing red tape so administrators can spend more time and money on students; making sure a degree is worth the time and money students spend to earn it; and helping colleges keep students safe on campus.”
While Alexander is aiming for an April markup of the bill, which would allow Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring legislation to the Senate floor in the first part of the year, observers are less optimistic. “The likelihood of it passing before 2020, I would put at very minimal,” said Barmak Nassirian, director of federal relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. “I’d put it as close to zero as I would any likelihood.”
Nassirian’s viewpoint is representative of that of many observers: Although everyone seems to agree that the current state of student lending is a problem, no one can agree on a solution. Meanwhile, disagreements about gatekeeping, costs, and quality continue to fester.