On the recordSeptember 5, 2018
I am supportive of this amendment because it simply allows institutions to encourage in-person counseling, but I would be remiss if I did not state that this provision is not necessary. The underlying bill already permits institutions to provide either in-person counseling or use the consumer-tested online tool that would be created by the Department of Education. H.R. 1635, the underlying bill, was written intentionally in this way to provide flexibility to institutions. Some institutions will be able to provide high quality in-person counseling, but underresourced institutions may find it difficult to do so. This is why the bill contains provisions to have the Department of Education create a standardized tool to ensure at least a base level of quality within and across institutions. Because the success of in- person counseling is informed not only by the content but also by the individual providing the counseling, this online tool will make sure that students receive the same caliber of counseling regardless of where the counseling is provided or who provides the counseling. To confirm effectiveness, the tool will be tested by students, financial aid advisers, advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders. Again, in-person counseling would be fine and best for some students when the institution can provide it, but having that flexibility is important as well. Mr. Chair, I do urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Source
govinfo.gov




