[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Page S3459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Lee):
  S. 1482. A bill to improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the 
application of the antitrust laws to the award of need-based 
educational aid; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Need-Based 
Educational Aid Act of 2015, a bill that extends the Section 568 
antitrust exemption for higher education institutions. I am pleased 
that Senator Leahy and Senator Lee are cosponsoring this bill.
  The Section 568 exemption enables colleges and universities to 
collaborate on need-blind financial aid policies. It allows these 
institutions to collaborate on a common formula for calculating a 
family's ability to pay for college, by permitting certain specific 
activities. The exemption was enacted in 1994, and since then has been 
reauthorized by Congress on three occasions. In addition, a 2006 GAO 
report found that the activities permitted by Section 568 did not 
result in harm to competition.
  Our bill would provide a 7-year extension for this exemption, and 
also remove one of the four previously permitted activities under the 
exemption that no school has ever used. By allowing financial aid 
professionals to work together in these ways, Section 568 provides 
increased access to higher education to low-income students, while 
preventing needless litigation over the development of principles for 
determining financial need.
  I am proud to introduce this important, bipartisan bill, which will 
ensure these benefits remain available for students and will encourage 
access to higher education for years to come.
  I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Lee, for their support of 
this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1482

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Need-Based Educational Aid 
     Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE 
                   ANTRITRUST LAWS TO THE AWARD OF NEED-BASED 
                   EDUCATIONAL AID.

       Section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 
     (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     period at the end; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``2015'' and inserting 
     ``2022''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators Grassley 
and Lee in introducing legislation to extend for an additional 7 years 
the antitrust exemption permitting colleges and universities to 
collaborate on issues of need-based financial aid. This exemption, 
which was first enacted by Congress in 1994, allows colleges and 
universities that admit students on a need-blind basis to collaborate 
on the formula used to determine how much families can pay for college. 
The Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015 is the fourth 
reauthorization of this exemption, which is set to expire this year.
  Congress must always carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of 
creating exemptions to the antitrust laws. These laws serve as an 
important bulwark to protect consumers from anticompetitive conduct. 
The Government Accountability Office has studied the effect of this 
particular exemption in the past and concluded that allowing 
universities to talk among themselves about financial aid policies and 
procedures has not caused any harm.
  Antitrust exemptions should not be a blank check, however, which is 
why this exemption is not permanent. Our legislation will sunset the 
exemption once again in 2022 and we have removed one of the permitted 
activities that no school has ever used. A time-limited exemption 
ensures that Congress will continue to conduct oversight in order to 
assess the impact on consumers. I have long been skeptical of permanent 
antitrust exemptions and the effect they have on the marketplace. For 
example, I have worked for years with a number of Senators from both 
parties to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a permanent exemption for 
the insurance industry in place since 1945.
  Allowing covered universities to focus their resources on ensuring 
the most qualified students can attend some of the best schools in the 
nation, regardless of family income, is a bipartisan and bicameral 
goal. I thank Congressmen Smith and Johnson for introducing this bill 
in the House and urge the Senate to pass this narrow legislation.
                                 ______