[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 80 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6748-S6752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ALEXANDER:
  S. 1261. A bill to simplify access to financial aid and access to 
information on college costs, to provide for more learning and less 
reporting, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in case the President may be wondering, 
and I asked consent about this, these are 7,000 regulations. We have 
6,000 autonomous institutions of higher education in the United States, 
colleges and universities.
  The Presiding Officer comes from the State that has some of the 
finest colleges and universities anywhere in America. I will not begin 
to name them because there are so many of them I might leave one out. 
Every single college or university, public or private, in North 
Carolina, Tennessee, or Colorado which has students with Federal grants 
or loans gets all of these boxes this year. These are the Federal 
regulations under title IV of the Higher Education Act that somebody at 
the smallest college or the biggest university must wade through in 
order to help students have Federal grants and Federal loans. The 
Federal grant and Federal loans are one of the great success stories of 
the United States of America. I will talk more about that.
  Mr. President, 60 percent of our college students and university 
students at those 6,000 public and private and profit and nonprofit 
institutes of higher education, 60 percent of them have a Federal grant 
or loan to help pay for college. That has increased over the last 4 or 
5 years about 10 times faster--9 times faster--than State funding for 
higher education.
  But my goal today, in my remarks and in the bill I am introducing, is 
to make it easier for boys and girls and men and women who attend our 
colleges and universities--and many of them are mature, older 
students--to make it easier for them to go through these documents. And 
then, on the other hand, to make it easier for our colleges and 
universities to comply with all these rules and regulations. I would 
like for them to be spending their time and their money helping our 
students learn instead of spending their time and their money reporting 
to us what they are doing.
  That is the purpose of what I want to do today. I am introducing the 
Higher Education Simplification and Deregulation Act of 2005, a bill 
that does what I just described. It will help students get access to 
available financial resources. Second, it will reduce the burden on 
colleges and universities imposed by Federal regulations so they can 
devote more of their time doing what they are meant to do: provide the 
highest quality postsecondary education in the world. And third, it 
will ensure that the autonomy and independence of our 6,000 
institutions of higher education are preserved.
  I am delighted I am able to interrupt the energy debate to talk about 
higher education because I think while it sounds like we are shifting 
gears, they really go together. If I am looking at our country today, 
and I had to take an exam this minute about the two greatest issues 
facing the United States of America, I would say, No. 1, terrorism, 
and, No. 2, competitiveness. ``Competitiveness'' a big word, meaning: 
How are we going to keep our jobs? How are we going to keep our 
standard of living in this country when we have 5 or 6 percent of the 
people in the world, and yet we produce a third of all the money, 
consume 25 percent of all the energy? And China and India and Singapore 
and Malaysia, not to mention Japan and Europe, are saying: Wait a 
minute. Our brains are as good as those American brains. A lot of our 
students have been going to the United States, creating jobs for those 
Americans. In fact, 572,000 foreign students are in this country today, 
basically improving our standard of living by their work here.
  So we are in a very competitive time. Just as we have been saying in 
energy, here comes China, here comes Malaysia, here comes India buying 
up the oil reserves, driving up the price. Here comes Germany and other 
parts of the world with lower natural gas prices than we have. And our 
jobs are going toward them.
  The other thing we could do to ensure our good jobs and to keep our 
higher standard of living is to focus on our brainpower. The great 
advantages the United States of America has had since World War II have 
been our low cost, reliable supply and access to energy, our science 
and technology edge, and our educational institutions. There are so 
many examples of that.
  Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the senior Senator from Texas, and our 
majority leader, Senator Bill Frist, had a little session in the 
leader's office last year. They invited the former Brazilian President 
Fernando Henrique Cardoso. He was concluding his residency at the 
Library of Congress. I remember after he had said what he had to say, 
we asked our questions.
  Senator Hutchison asked of President Cardoso: Mr. President, what is 
the one thing you are going to remember about the United States from 
your stay here at the Library of Congress that you will take with you 
back to your country of Brazil? Without a moment's hesitation, he said: 
The American university, the greatness and the autonomy of the American 
university.
  I will tell you another story. A few years ago, I was asked to be the 
president of the University of Tennessee. It was 1988. I was glad to do 
it. I had been chairman of the board of the university for 8 years as 
Governor, and I appointed a lot of the trustees, but I was not a 
skilled university president. So I sought out David Gardner, the 
president of the University of California, which I regard, with all 
respect to North Carolina, at least at that time, to be the outstanding 
public university in America and perhaps one of the best in the world.
  I said to David Gardner: Why is the University of California so good? 
Without a moment's hesitation, he said: First, autonomy. When 
California created the university--they created four branches of 
government, really: legislative, executive, judicial, and then the 
University of California. He said: Fundamentally, they give us the 
money, and then our board and we decide how to spend it. Our autonomy 
has permitted us to do the second thing, set very high standards. And 
then he said the third thing was the large amount of Federal dollars 
that follows students to the educational institution of their choice.
  So autonomy, excellence, and choice--Federal dollars following 
students to the schools of their choice. That is how David Gardner 
explained the California model for excellence in higher education.
  That model has worked for our country since the GI bill for veterans 
was enacted in 1944. I have wondered many times how we were fortunate 
enough to have decided to do it in the way they did it. This was for 
the veterans. It was the end of World War II. There were college 
presidents who were very upset about the idea of giving the veterans 
money and just telling them to go wherever they wanted to go to 
college.
  The president of the University of Chicago said it would make the 
University of Chicago a hobo's jungle. But we know what it did. We had 
veterans coming back and taking their GI bill. Many of them took it to 
Catholic high schools and other high schools because they had not 
finished high school. But they went wherever they wanted, to any 
accredited institution. They went to Yeshiva. They went to Vanderbilt. 
They went to the historically Black colleges and universities across 
America--Harvard. It did not matter. If it was accredited, they chose 
the institution.

[[Page S6749]]

  The same formula was applied when the Pell grants were created by 
this Congress in honor of Senator Pell, who was a former Member of this 
body; as is true with Senator Stafford and the Stafford loans. Instead 
of giving those grants and loans to the University of North Carolina 
and the University of Tennessee, they went to the student. The student 
then said: Well, I will decide where I want to go. I may want to go to 
Rhodes College, or I may want to go to Lenore Rhyne or I may want to go 
to the University of Florida or Yeshiva or Howard. They go where they 
want to go.

  Because of that, we now have 6,000 autonomous institutions around the 
country. Many of them are nonprofit. Many of them are for profit. 
Eighty percent of our students go to public institutions, but 20 
percent go to private institutions. Because it is a marketplace of 
6,000 institutions, and some are, of course, better than others, 
because it is a marketplace, we have been able to adapt to a changing 
world that now has different subjects, different standards, a more 
global environment, and students who are, by and large, much older and 
have different needs than they did before.
  If we had not had that kind of marketplace of colleges and 
universities, we would be stuck in the mud, and we would not have 
former President Cardoso of Brazil talking so well about our colleges 
and universities.
  We do not just have some of the best colleges and universities in the 
world; we have almost all of them. And the rest of the world knows 
that. We do not have 572,000 foreign students studying in our country 
this year because we made them come, or even because we give them 
scholarships. They pay to come for the most part. They are the 
brightest students in most of these countries. And 60 percent of our 
postdoctoral students are from overseas. Half our students in computer 
and engineering graduate programs are from overseas. They are here for 
that reason. So we attract these students. The Federal Government has 
continued to be generous.
  So there are two things I am introducing today with this bill. Number 
one, this legislation would simplify the financial aid process and 
expand access for students. We do it in these ways: (a) streamline the 
forms for Federal grants and loans, making access to student financial 
aid easier; (b) provide students who want to expedite their education 
and study year-round the Federal support to do so; (c) provide students 
with financial information about colleges and universities in a clear 
and concise manner that does not require additional reporting from 
institutions.
  The second purpose of the bill is to protect that autonomy, that one 
word, that independence, that autonomy of these 6,000 institutions. 
That is, in my view, a critical element of why we have the best 
colleges and universities in the world.
  What I mean by that is we did not order them to be good from 
Washington. That is not how they got to be great. They were autonomous 
and independent. We allowed them to be, and then we gave them students, 
followed by money, who created a competitive marketplace. And they 
became the best in the world.
  So this legislation eliminates, streamlines, and evaluates 
regulations currently imposed on institutions of higher education with 
the goal of lessening the burden on schools. That way, universities can 
focus more on teaching and researching and less on maintaining 
reporting requirements for the Federal Government.
  The bill, No. 1, appoints an expert panel to review Department of 
Education regulations and to recommend how those regulations might be 
streamlined or eliminated. Two, it accelerates the ``negotiated 
rulemaking process'' whereby universities negotiate new rules with the 
Department so that an end result can be reached without costly delays. 
And three, it develops a compliance calendar so that universities know 
what requirements they have to meet and when they to have meet them.
  What I mean by that is, it will be up to us in the Federal Government 
to send to the University of North Carolina or Maryville College in 
Tennessee a list of the rules they have to comply with so they don't 
have to hire a whole team of people to try to wade through and read 
everything.
  This is just one title of the Higher Education Act. It has several 
titles. So a compliance calendar would help deregulate.
  These changes build on the successful model for American higher 
education. By making the financial aid process more user friendly and 
more accessible, more students will have Federal funds following them 
to the college or university of their choice. And by relieving some of 
the Federal regulatory burden, we are restoring university autonomy so 
they can spend more time teaching and researching and less time filling 
out paperwork.
  I have two major purposes. The first is to simplify and expand access 
to financial aid, to make it easier for the 60 percent of our college 
students who fill out a form to get a Federal grant or loan; and 
second, to reduce the burdensome paperwork on the colleges and 
universities.
  In terms of simplifying access, we need to remember that the faces 
and needs of our college students have changed. More typically these 
days, when I go to a graduation--this has been true for a number of 
years--the cry you hear from the audience is: Way to go, mom. It is the 
mom who is getting her degree, or the dad, going back to school, 
college, community college, trade school, university to get the skills 
they need to get a better job or another job in a rapidly changing 
world.
  In 1970, we had 7.4 million students, 28 percent of whom were 
enrolled part time and 38 percent at two-year colleges. Only 28 percent 
were 25 or older. By 1999, enrollment had grown to 12.7 million, a 7.2-
percent increase with 39 percent enrolled part time and 44 percent in 
two-year colleges. Nearly half our students in 1999 were in two-year 
colleges. Our financial aid system needs to catch up.
  The first thing we can do is to simplify what we call the Free 
Application Federal Student Aid. As one might expect, it is known 
around here as FAFSA. Imagine that. You go out and try to talk to a 
family of someone who might be going to college for the first time and 
that family says let me talk to you about FAFSA.
  I think we ought to change the name. I think we ought to make it easy 
for people to understand what we are talking about. I recently met a 
chief financial officer of a company who said she found the form 
challenging when helping her high school daughter fill out a form for 
financial aid. I can only imagine the challenge to a high school 
student, or a working mother, when trying to answer over 100 confusing 
questions, the vast majority of which are only applicable for the State 
of California.
  So a second thing we can do is make sure students can use the Federal 
aid for education they need year round. Flexibility for year-round Pell 
grants is a part of this legislation so students can have the 
flexibility they need to go and continue their education in the summer. 
There is a disincentive for that. Not only is that inconvenient for 
students and working students, it tends to encourage institutions to 
waste the resources in the summertime, which they should be putting to 
better use.
  The third thing we can do is make sure there is more information. 
That is why I suggest the ``best buy'' list--a list of the 100 schools 
with the lowest tuition and required fees, with the greatest 
availability of scholarships and grants. In other words, this would 
help parents and students decide where they could get the biggest bang 
for their buck.
  Many of the ideas that are in our legislation came from the Advisory 
Committee on Student Financial Assistance. Senator Gregg, when he was 
chairman, and I invited them to work on this. They did a terrific job 
and they came up with 10 recommendations, 8 of which are in this bill, 
and I believe they have no cost to the budget.
  The other area and my final comments have to do with the other side 
of the ledger. While we are making it easier for students to have 
access to financial aid, we should work to relieve the regulatory 
burden on colleges and universities represented by these boxes of 7,000 
regulations that contain all the forms any college or university in 
Florida or Tennessee or North Carolina would receive this year to fill 
out. Thanks to the last two rounds of reauthorizing the Higher 
Education Act,

[[Page S6750]]

there are today more than 7,000 regulations associated with the title 
IV student aid program. With the exception of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, every Federal 
agency is involved in regulating some aspect of higher education. That 
is incredible and it is absolutely ridiculous.
  In 1997, Gerhard Casper, the president of Stanford University, said 
Stanford spends 7 cents out of every tuition dollar on compliance with 
Government regulations. This has only gotten worse in the last 9 years. 
We need to ease the burden. For example, under the Higher Education 
Act, universities are required to report how many full-time employees 
have dental insurance, whether the university is a member of a national 
athletic association, and the number of meals that are in a ``board'' 
charge. Colleges are required to hand every student a paper in-State 
voter registration form and cannot use modern technology such as Web 
registrations, which would actually reach more students. We are giving 
university staff busy work to do when they ought to be helping 
students.
  Here is another example. When a major chemical company such as DuPont 
produces 55-gallon containers of a potentially hazardous waste, we 
require Dupont to report on how all that waste is disposed and ensure 
that it is done in a certain manner. This is a good regulation and 
idea. Right now, we are applying the same regulation and paperwork to a 
chemistry class at a college that might produce half a test tube of the 
same substance.
  Mr. President, I don't know about the presiding officer, the Senator 
from Florida, and I now see the Senator from Virginia; I suspect that 
when we all go back to our States and speak to our Lincoln Day dinners, 
or when the Democrats go to the Jefferson Day dinners, we all say the 
thing we need to do once we pass these laws is to have more oversight 
and ease the burden of regulation. When I say that, I get a big round 
of applause, because at home people don't think we get any smarter when 
we fly to Washington, DC, each week. They think it would be absurd to 
know there are 7,000 regulations governing college grants and loans, 
and that Stanford University spends 7 cents out of--and this is a 
private university--every tuition dollar paying for the cost of 
Government regulations.

  One reason we have an increased interest in regulating is because 
there are a great many Members of Congress, as well as people in the 
country, who worry about rising tuition costs. I worry about those, 
too. When I was Governor of Tennessee, we used to have a deal with the 
students. The State will pay 70 percent of the cost, and you pay 30 
percent, and if we raise your tuition, we will raise the State 
contribution. That has changed, I am afraid, and I think it is 
important for us to know that. Tuition is not going up because the 
Federal Government is failing to do its job. Over the last 4 years, 
Pell grants, work-study, scholarships all gone up about 30 percent. At 
the same time, over the last 4 years, State spending for higher 
education is up 3.6 percent. I will say that again. This is according 
to various educational institutions, including the Center for Study of 
Education Policy, Illinois State University. In fiscal year 2001, there 
was a 3.4 percent increase in State funding for higher education. In 
2002, there was a 1.2-percent decrease; in the next year, a 2.4-percent 
decrease. This is State funding for higher education. Last year, there 
was a 3.8-percent increase--3.6 over the 4 years.
  So what our colleges and universities are feeling, and what our 
students are feeling, is decreased State support for higher education. 
One reason they are feeling that is because we have not given States 
the tools to control the growth in Medicaid spending. So in Tennessee, 
Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, our colleges and universities 
are hurting because the Governors and legislatures are spending the 
dollars that ought to be going for excellence in universities. They are 
spending it on huge increases in Medicaid costs. That is part of our 
responsibility, too.
  So I come to the floor today to introduce the Higher Education 
Simplification and Deregulation Act of 2005. I invite my colleagues to 
join me in it. We will be marking up a Higher Education Authorization 
Act next month. It affects 60 percent of the college students in the 
United States. I am sure we are going to continue to fund those grants 
and loans, as we have from here, but we also need to do two other 
things. One of them is in here, and that is not to get busy regulating 
more colleges and universities. We should be deregulating. The other 
thing we should do, which is not a part of this bill, is to keep our 
commitment to the Governors that, by about the fall of this year, we 
should give them the legislative tools they need--and I believe also 
relief from Federal court consent decrees, which are outdated--so they 
can manage the growth of Medicaid spending, so that in turn we can 
continue to support higher education.
  Our energy bill and our higher education bill are at the forefront of 
our policies to keep our jobs and our competitiveness.
  Here's one more example: If you grab a pint bottle of rubbing alcohol 
from your bathroom and take it to a university laboratory, it will 
immediately fall under the regulation and scrutiny of six different 
regulatory agencies:
  (1) the air quality management district,
  (2) the sewer district,
  (3) OSHA,
  (4) the local fire department,
  (5) the county environmental health department, and
  (6) the state hazardous waste agency.
  While all of these are not directly governed by federal regulations, 
many are responding to them, and we should do our part to reduce this 
type of burden. In one instance, a prestigious institution in the 
Midwest was visited by the EPA and a bottle of dishwashing soap was 
found in a lab near a sink. The institution was fined for improper 
management of hazardous waste because the label was not still attached 
to the bottle. Even worse, the institution had to pay to have the soap 
analyzed to document that it was not hazardous.
  Colleges are in the business of teaching students, not sending 
meaningless paperwork to the federal government. To fix this problem, 
my legislation would establish an expert panel to review federal 
regulations applicable to colleges and universities and make 
recommendations to the Secretary of Education and the Congress on how 
some of these regulations could be streamlined or eliminated. The bill 
also would assist institutions in complying with all these requirements 
by requiring the Department to develop a compliance calendar outlining 
specific deadlines for paperwork submissions.
  In those cases where there is already clarity about how to deal with 
regulations, the bill takes action. The bill will accelerate the 
``negotiated rulemaking process,'' a process whereby university 
representatives negotiate new regulations with the Department. Today 
this process can drag on for years, imposing unnecessary costs along 
the way due to uncertainty over a final outcome for the rule. Under my 
bill, that process would have a one year deadline. To give schools a 
chance to adjust to newly agreed regulations, institutions of higher 
education would be provided with a minimum of at least 270 days between 
the publication of any final regulations or guidance and the initiation 
of data collection related to new disclosure requirements.
  The bill also reinstates provisions to allow schools with a low 
``cohort default rate,'' meaning that less than 10 percent of their 
students fail to pay all their loans back on time, the option of 
distributing loan money to students right at the beginning of the year 
rather than waiting a month or spacing the money out over the period of 
a year. This is important since students incur many expenses up front 
during their education and need the flexibility to pay for fees, books, 
and other costs.
  Mr. President, since the end of World War II, our system of higher 
education has been unmatched around the globe. According to the 
Institute of Higher Education at Shanghai University, more than half 
the world's top 100 universities are in the United States.
  But our lead is slipping. During a trip to Europe, I discovered that 
Chancellor Schroeder of Germany is putting a strong emphasis on 
reforming his country's university system to mirror--and perhaps even 
eclipse--our own. British prime minister Tony Blair is overhauling his 
nation's system because he sees a growing gap between the quality

[[Page S6751]]

of American and British universities. Authorities in India and 
especially China are working harder than ever to improve the quality of 
education in their own countries and keep their brightest minds from 
leaving their countries. Australia and Canada are making strides as 
well. And, for the first time, we have witnessed a decline in graduate 
student enrollment. The Council on Graduate Schools estimated that 
foreign applications to graduate programs in the U.S. were down this 
year by five percent.
  This greater competition means that not only do we find it harder 
than ever to attract foreign students, but our graduates will find it 
harder to compete for top-paying jobs in the global economy since they 
will be competing against talented, well-educated individuals from 
around the world.
  Now is the time to fine-tune our own system of higher education and 
restore its greatest strengths: generous financial assistance for 
students, autonomy, and high standards. Generous support is most 
effective when students can access it with a minimum of hassle and with 
maximum flexibility to apply it to their accredited program. Freedom 
from over-regulation or control by government allows colleges and 
universities to quickly adjust to the needs of their students and focus 
on teaching and research. High standards are the natural result of a 
competitive system where schools compete among each other for dollars 
and students.
  My bill restores the pillars of our higher education system and gives 
us the ability to move forward with confidence in the twenty-first 
century. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a summary of the Higher Education Simplification and 
Deregulation Act of 2005.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Higher Education Simplification and Deregulation Act of 2005

       There are 6,000 autonomous institutions of higher education 
     nationwide, and it is the autonomy and independence that our 
     universities possess that makes our system of higher 
     education the best in the world. While the federal government 
     partners with American students, families and institutions to 
     make a college education accessible, increased regulations on 
     these same entities threatens this remarkably successful 
     relationship. Countries around the world look to our higher 
     education system and are trying to emulate it. The Higher 
     Education Simplification and Deregulation Act of 2005 (the 
     Act) takes steps to reduce bureaucratic red tape, increase 
     autonomy and allow the U.S. to continue to be the best in the 
     world. As we reauthorize The Higher Education Act over the 
     next five years, our goal should be to make college more 
     accessible and not restrict that autonomy.


   Simplify: Access to Financial Aid and Information on College Costs

       (1) Simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 
     (FAFSA)
       Implement the majority of recommendations from the Advisory 
     Committee on Student Financial Assistance on simplification 
     of the FAFSA form including improved transparency, 
     verification of need and earlier notification of financial 
     aid eligibility. There is no cost associated with 
     implementing these recommendations.
       (2) Year-Round Pell Grants and Flexible Loans for Year 
     Round Study
       Authorize year-round Pell grants for both 2 and 4 year 
     institutions. This will help working students and older 
     adults who need increased flexibility and year round 
     financial aid.
       Increase annual loan limits for greater funding flexibility 
     for students attending college for more than two academic 
     semesters.
       (3) Secretary's list on College ``BEST BUYS''
       Secretary will publish existing institutional data in a 
     user friendly way.
       Best Buy List of ``the top 100'' will help students 
     decipher institutional expenses and financial aid.
       Each year the Secretary shall publish a list of 
     institutions of higher education, by all nine sectors, that 
     identifies:
       (a) The 100 schools with the lowest tuition and required 
     fees;
       (b) The 100 schools with the lowest cost of attendance;
       (c) The 100 schools with the largest percentage of incoming 
     full-time students who receive financial aid;
       (d) The 100 schools with the largest average amount of 
     incoming full-time student financial aid on a per student 
     basis;
       (e) The 100 schools with the largest percentage of students 
     who receive institutional grants and scholarships;
       (f) The 100 schools with the slowest increase in tuition 
     and fees during the preceding 5 years; and
       (g) The 100 schools with the slowest increase in total cost 
     of attendance during the preceding 5 years.
       (4) Make the Department of Education's Graduate Programs' 
     Need Analysis consistent with other federal graduate 
     programs.
       All graduate and professional students are, by definition, 
     independent students and therefore highly likely to have 
     financial need. The federal need analysis requirement in 
     Jacob K. Javits fellowship and Graduate Assistance in Areas 
     of National Need (GAANN) programs often causes lengthy delays 
     in processing grant applications. Instead of yielding helpful 
     distinctions among the applicant pool, the requisite 
     utilization of the federal needs analysis methodology creates 
     massive amounts of paperwork for students, institutions, and 
     the Department of Education. Comparable graduate fellowship 
     programs, such as the Title VI Foreign Language and Area 
     Studies program, and similar training and fellowship programs 
     at National Institutes of Health, National Science 
     Foundation, and the Department of Defense contain no such 
     requirement. Therefore, Javits and GAANN will not be subject 
     to federal needs analysis.


                     More Learning, Less Reporting

       Institutions of higher education are among the most 
     regulated entities in the United States.
       With the exception of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, all federal 
     agencies are involved in regulating some aspect of higher 
     education.
       In addition, there are more than 7,000 regulations 
     associated with Title IV student aid programs alone.
       Seven cents of every tuition dollar is spent on government 
     regulations (Stanford University, 1997)
       There are lots of regulators of higher education and even 
     more regulations issued by the Department.
       (1) Appoint an Expert Panel to Review and Streamline 
     Department of Education Regulations
       Panels, appointed by the Secretary, will review regulations 
     on financial aid, institutional eligibility, regulations 
     unrelated to the delivery of student aid and dissemination of 
     information requirements. The panel would then make 
     recommendations to the Secretary and the appropriate 
     Congressional committees on streamlining and eliminating 
     these regulations.
       (2) One Size Does Not Fit All for Industry and Academic 
     Regulations
       Fund a project by the National Research Council to develop 
     standards in environmental, health and safety areas to 
     provide for differential regulation of industrial facilities, 
     on the one hand, and research and teaching laboratories and 
     facilities on the other. The report will make specific 
     recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes that are 
     needed to develop such a differential approach.
       (3) Accelerate Negotiated Rulemaking Process
       The process, while somewhat successful, is costly, and 
     significantly delays implementation of regulations. This 
     process should be streamlined. This bill gives the Secretary 
     of Education the authority to engage in negotiated 
     rulemaking, but she is not required to do so if she decides 
     the process is too cumbersome or inefficient.
       (4) Develop a Compliance Calendar
       For financial aid programs alone, institutions must comply 
     with over 7,000 pages of regulations.
       Each year, the Secretary will be required to provide 
     eligible institutions a list of the reporting and disclosure 
     requirements under the Higher Education Act to assist 
     institutions in complying with these requirements.
       The list will include: (1) the date each report is required 
     to be completed and to be submitted, made available, or 
     disseminated; (2) the required recipients of each report, 
     including reports that must be kept on file for inspection 
     upon request; (3) any required method for transmittal or 
     dissemination; (4) a description of the content of each 
     report sufficient to allow the institution to identify the 
     appropriate individuals to be assigned the responsibility for 
     its preparation; (5) references to the statutory authority, 
     applicable regulations, and current guidance issued by the 
     Secretary regarding each report; and (6) any other 
     information which is pertinent to the content or distribution 
     of the report or disclosure.
       (5) Reinstate two expiring provisions on disbursement of 
     student loans.
       The first provision allows schools with cohort default 
     rates below 10 percent to disburse a loan in a single 
     installment rather than in multiple disbursements over the 
     year.
       The second lets schools with low cohort default rates waive 
     the requirement that loan proceeds of a first-year, first-
     time borrower loan be withheld for thirty days so that these 
     students can purchase books and supplies, pay housing costs, 
     and meet other expenses.
       (6) Voter Registration Dissemination.
       This bill clarifies that institutions can use electronic 
     means to meet the requirement to disseminate voter 
     registration forms to students. Electronic means will ensure 
     that dissemination to students occurs both effectively and 
     efficiently.


   Eliminate or Alter the following Reporting Requirements in the HEA

       (1) Application of Change of Ownership to non-profit 
     institutions

[[Page S6752]]

       The Department of Education applies provisions concerning 
     change of institutional ownership to nonprofit institutions, 
     despite clear expression of contrary congressional intent and 
     the common understanding that nonprofit institutions do not 
     have owners. This places unnecessary burdens on institutions, 
     and may act as a deterrent to governance changes intended to 
     make institutions more efficient and effective.
       (2) Disclosure of Foreign Gifts
       When an institution receives a foreign gift in excess of 
     $250,000 they must report it to the federal government. This 
     data is publicly available in the annual reports prepared by 
     every college and university and is carefully monitored for 
     public institutions by state governments. The Department of 
     Education reports that it never gets public requests for this 
     information. Institutions will no longer be required to 
     provide this information to the federal government, but make 
     it publicly available on an annual basis.
                                 ______