Rep. John Kline of Minnesota became the top Republican on the U.S. House of Representatives education committee last month. The panel is expected to take up proposals to overhaul the federal student-loan system as soon as this week.
In an interview, which was conducted via e-mail last week, Mr. Kline said he opposes President Obama’s plan to move to 100-percent direct lending, arguing that the private sector plays an important role that should be preserved. In general, he says, he approaches education issues from the perspective that “Washington does not always know best.”
He says he opposes creating federal mandates for states or institutions to control college costs, is somewhat skeptical about whether the government should play a role in dictating and measuring what counts as a quality education, and views overregulation of colleges as a “real concern.”
Mr. Kline, a retired Marine Corps colonel who earned a bachelor’s degree in biology from Rice University and a master’s degree in public administration from Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, replaces Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon of California. Mr. McKeon left his education post to take the top slot for Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee.
Here is an edited version of the interview with Mr. Kline:
Q. What do you think of the president’s plan to do away with the guaranteed-loan program and shift all loans to the direct-loan program?
A. Simply put, I’m opposed to the plan. I think the private sector plays an important role in student lending, from the investment of private capital and technological innovation to the financial education services and customer service.
We’ve seen estimates that elimination of the [Federal Family Education Loan Program, or FFEL] will cost this country something close to 30,000 jobs. It’s bad news in a struggling economy, but it’s also bad news for students. FFEL providers offer college planning, financial-literacy education, default prevention, and a host of other services that are certain to be lost when we eliminate local providers and replace them with federal bureaucracy. There’s a reason that most colleges and universities have chosen to participate in the FFEL Program, and I worry about the loss of benefits when that choice is taken away.
It would be a real mistake to permanently eliminate the public-private partnership of the FFEL Program in favor of the one-size-fits-all approach of the direct-loan program.
Q. If Congress approves the president’s plan, how should the savings be used? Do you support making Pell Grants an entitlement, or are there other ways you’d spend the money?
A. I’m not willing to assume that the president’s plan is going to become law. Members of both parties have doubts about this plan, and we need to wait and see how the legislative process unfolds.
The idea of a new entitlement program with an $80-billion to $90-billion price tag as a down payment seems to make a mockery of the budget-reconciliation process, which —after all —was intended to reduce the deficit, not add billions in new spending obligations. Republicans have a long history of support for the Pell Grant program, and we will continue to support responsible spending that will make college more affordable. Unfortunately, that’s not what Democrats are proposing.
Q. What steps do you think colleges should be taking to control costs, and do you see a role for the federal government in reining in tuition growth? What do you think of the president’s plan to provide additional Perkins Loans to colleges that control their costs?
A. College costs are a serious challenge for American families, and I don’t think most institutions of higher education have done enough in recent years to remain affordable. However, we need to be careful about what role the federal government plays in the cost equation. Are we improving college access, or simply making the system more costly and complicated?
I oppose federal mandates on states or institutions that are designed to control costs. Even though they are well-intentioned, I worry that these types of mandates will have harmful unintended consequences.
We’ll need to take a close look at the administration’s plan for Perkins Loans. Although they have not provided details on this new strategy, when that information is provided to Congress we’ll need to determine whether it will be an effective tool to hold down costs or simply another federal program that adds complexity to our financial-aid system.
Q. Should the government hold colleges accountable for the quality of education they provide? If so, how?
A. Taxpayers invest billions in higher education each year, and of course we want to be sure that we’re getting our money’s worth. But I do understand the concern about the federal government dictating and measuring what counts as a quality education, and I share some skepticism that the federal government can or should play this kind of a role.
However, we’ve made progress in the last few years with our efforts to make higher education more transparent so that students and families can judge for themselves whether an institution is providing the high-quality education they are looking for.
Q. President Obama called for all students to pursue a year or more of higher education and set the goal of making the United States first in college-completion rates by 2020. Do you think this is the right goal, and is it realistic? If so, how do we get there? Do you support the president’s proposal to create a $2.5-billion access-and-completion fund?
A. The economy is changing, and I agree that more Americans are going to need some kind of postsecondary education or training for America to compete on the international stage. America’s colleges recognize this challenge, and I believe they are already taking steps to increase enrollment and prepare today’s students for tomorrow’s world.
However, I do not think that another federal program is going to help us accomplish this important goal. These incremental steps create a fragmented system that is complicated, redundant, and wasteful. Worse, it drains critical resources away from existing education priorities, whether it’s Pell Grants or the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
Q. The president said he would call on Congress to rewrite the formula used to determine eligibility for student aid. Do you support efforts to simplify the formula?
A. Absolutely. Every time Congress creates a new federal student-aid program, our financial-aid system gets more complicated. We need to simplify our financial-aid system. If we simplify the system, we’ll be able to simplify the formula and the form. We’ll also make more efficient use of resources.
Q. Do you believe colleges are overregulated? If so, what should be done about it?
A. I think overregulation is a real concern; that’s why Congress called on the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance to examine the higher-education regulatory system as a whole and suggest ways to simplify and streamline. Every time Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act, policy makers create new programs, new requirements, and new red tape. Unfortunately, instead of replacing one regulation with another, Washington bureaucrats tend to layer them on. After a few years, the system becomes complex and burdensome.
Q. How are your priorities the same or different from those of your predecessor, Representative McKeon? On which key issues do you agree or disagree with the committee’s chairman, George Miller?
A. When it comes to education, I start from the belief that Washington does not always know best. It’s true in K-12 education, and it’s true in higher education as well.
I also believe that Congress has a duty to fund existing obligations before creating new programs. That means supporting Pell Grants, which are at the foundation of our higher-education system. It also means funding K-12 priorities like IDEA [Individuals With Disabilities Education Act] so that our school systems have the freedom and flexibility to pursue other types of education reform, including initiatives that will expand college preparedness.
I agree with Representative McKeon that college costs are a major challenge for American families, and I also agree with him that the private sector plays an important role in student lending that ought to be preserved. It’s an area of disagreement with Chairman Miller, but I hope he and I can find common ground in other areas, from improving teacher quality to promoting transparency in higher education.