Statement on Signing the
Higher Education Amendments of 1986
I
have signed S. 1965, the Higher Education Amendments of 1986. This bill extends
and amends through fiscal year 1991 the Higher Education Act of 1965, a source
of Federal assistance to millions of American students and thousands of
educational institutions. This administration has always supported, and will
continue to support, programs properly designed to help our neediest young
people acquire higher education.
Several
program improvements and cost-saving measures have been included in this bill,
including provisions to reduce and better focus student loan subsidies, as well
as to improve student loan collections and reduce defaults. I am particularly
pleased that S. 1965 includes authority for an income-contingent direct student
loan demonstration project, based upon proposals made by the administration. I
believe this project, which allows borrowers to finance more of their own
college costs more easily out of their long-term earnings, may signal an
important, new direction in the financing of postsecondary education.
I
do have serious concerns about S. 1965, however. The bill does little to meet
the administration's major objectives for higher education: restoring more
appropriate and equitable student aid funding roles to States, schools,
students, and their families; targeting assistance on truly needy students; and
eliminating excessive subsidies to intermediary institutions such as banks,
schools, and loan guarantee agencies. S. 1965 also fails to simplify and
streamline the major student aid programs; to reduce fraud and error; and to
cut the extremely burdensome and unnecessary redtape
with which students, parents, schools, lenders, and others now struggle. In the
same vein, S. 1965 improperly limits the discretion of the Secretary of
Education to manage these programs effectively, particularly in areas such as
controlling the use of federally tax-exempt instruments to finance student aid
and verifying the accuracy of basic aid application information. Making
excessively complex programs even more complicated, and then denying their
chief administrator the tools to operate them efficiently and effectively, is an
invitation to program abuse.
In
this time of continued need for budgetary restraint, S. 1965 ignores the
serious question of how the taxpayer would finance the cost of new and expanded
programs. This bill authorizes the appropriation of over $57 billion for the
5-year authorization period, which is $13 billion, or 30 percent, more than
what would be needed to fund higher education programs under current law. S.
1965 is $30 billion, or 100 percent, over my budget request for the 1987 - 91 period. I am also advised by the Justice Department that
section 1321 of the bill poses a potential constitutional problem. That section
purports to create a new commission as an independent agency within the
executive branch, but does not provide for the appointment of the members of
the commission in a manner consistent with the appointments clause. I sign this
bill, therefore, on the understanding that this body is not an independent
agency within the executive branch, but an advisory commission charged with
making recommendations to the Congress.
There
are many other provisions of this bill I do not support -- unnecessary new
programs and special projects for individual schools, for example. I am signing
this bill because the basic Higher Education Act authorities provide aid to
deserving students and support important programs. However, the administration
remains committed to improving the higher education programs and to reducing
their costs to the American taxpayer. We will continue to propose necessary
changes and cost savings.
Note:
S. 1965, approved October 17, was assigned Public Law No. 99 - 498.