|
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, PENNSYLVANIA,
|
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2181 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6100
MAJORITY: (202) 225-4527
(TTY) (202) 226-3372 MINORITY: (202) 225-3725 (TTY) (202) 226-3116 |
WILLIAM L. CLAY, MISSOURI
|
December 16, 1998
The Honorable Richard Riley
Secretary of Education
United States Department of Education
600 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Secretary Riley:
As you know, members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce (Committee) worked hard during the 105th Congress to pass legislation that would lead to improvements in the Department of Education’s (Department) administration of its student financial assistance programs. The fruit of these efforts was the inclusion of language creating a performance-based organization (PBO) in the final version of H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998.
Recently, the higher education community has expressed concern to us and to you that the PBO effort may be starting off in the wrong direction – a direction other than that which Congress had intended. We share the concerns of the higher education community as they relate to the responsibilities of the PBO and the assignment of staff to the new organization.
For example, we recently learned that the Guarantor and Lender Oversight Service, the Policy, Training and Analysis Service and the Institutional Participation and Oversight Service are being incorporated into the PBO. These offices have substantial duties in the areas of policy, regulation and oversight. Also, we have been told that many of those employees assigned to the PBO are now deeply engaged in the negotiated rulemaking process required by H.R. 6.
Our concern is that the clear distinction drawn in the legislation between operational and policy/regulatory responsibilities is being blurred. The purpose of the PBO is to improve the efficiency of the student aid programs by improving service and reducing costs. We anticipate that this purpose will be accomplished largely by integrating the various student aid computer systems now in use. In order that the PBO not be sidetracked from these objectives, H.R. 6 not only states the purposes of the PBO, it also specifies what Department responsibilities remain outside of its purview.
For instance, the law states that, "…the Secretary shall maintain responsibility for the development and promulgation of policy and regulations relating to the programs of student financial assistance under title IV." It also states that, "…the PBO shall be responsible for administration of the information and financial systems that support student financial assistance programs authorized under this tile, excluding the development of policy relating to such programs…" (italics added)
In short, while the PBO would certainly be consulted on legislative, policy, regulatory and oversight matters, the Chief Operating Officer’s (COO) primary responsibilities were to be operational.
Committee staff recently met with your newly appointed COO, Mr. Greg Woods, and they shared these concerns with Mr. Woods at that time. However, we wanted to share these concerns with you directly. We are committed to seeing the PBO succeed in implementing a successful and modern operational system for the delivery of student financial assistance and we understand the magnitude of the task, which is why we do not want the PBO to get bogged down in the politics of developing policy.
In order for us to be better informed with respect to your vision of the PBO, we would appreciate receiving a response to the following questions by January 4, 1999.
- It is our understanding that the staffing of the PBO is being accomplished by a wholesale transfer into the new organization of the approximately 1,200 employees of the Office of Student Financial Assistance (SFA). Aren’t a significant number of these employees now engaged primarily in legislative, policy, regulatory or oversight matters? Along with your response, please provide a copy of the most recent staffing plan for the PBO.
- Please list the functional offices of the Department that are being transferred into the PBO. For each office, briefly summarize the operational (as opposed to legislative, policy, regulatory or oversight) function of that office, and why you believe it is appropriate for that office to be moved to the PBO.
- Pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act), the Department is required to submit annual performance plans and later evaluate the extent to which specific performance goals have been achieved. Several objectives established by the Department in its FY 1999 annual plan relate to the delivery of student financial assistance. They are listed under the auspices of the Office of Postsecondary Education. One such goal is to reduce the operating cost of the major student aid computer systems. Another involves benchmarking administrative costs "against other comparable programs, e.g. Sallie Mae."
Unfortunately, baseline standards have yet to be developed for either objective. What role do you anticipate that the PBO will play with respect to setting Results Act objectives and baselines, and evaluating the extent to which they are achieved?
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions regarding this inquiry, please contact Peter Warren at 225-7101.
Sincerely,
|
Chairman, Committee on Education Subcommittee on Postsecondary |
Committee on Education Subcommittee on Postsecondary |
REP. PETE HOEKSTRA
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oversight
And Investigations
cc: Marshall Smith
Greg Woods
