[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 186 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6696-S6702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Pensions

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the financial crisis facing the private 
sector multiemployer pension system calls for comprehensive reform and 
getting it done soon.
  The crisis is severe and growing worse every day. Would you believe 
about 125 multiemployer plans are in so-called critical and declining 
financial status? These plans report that they will become insolvent 
over the next two decades. There will be a lot of people without a 
retirement plan if we don't act.
  Several large plans, including the United Mine Workers Pension Fund 
and the large Central States Pension Fund, predict these plans will 
become insolvent in the next few years. That is not a very comfortable 
environment for those retirees.
  This will leave more than 1.3 million participants without the 
pension benefits they have been promised and, of course, worked for 
probably throughout their whole lives.
  In just my State of Iowa, the benefits of close to 10,000 
participants of multiemployer plans are at risk if the system fails. 
Ten thousand Iowans being affected by what we do or don't do, 
obviously, gets my attention. That figure of 10,000 will represent over 
$70 million in benefits paid out annually that these individuals rely 
on in retirement.
  More broadly, another large group of multiemployer plans are in 
critical status. They report that no realistic combination of 
contribution increases or allowable benefit reductions--options 
available under the current law

[[Page S6697]]

to address their financial condition--will enable these plans to emerge 
from their current, poorly funded financial condition. So it is very 
important that Congress act to save these retirement plans. These plans 
cover millions more workers and retirees across the Nation, and those 
workers and retirees face significant benefit cuts under existing law.
  We should also be concerned about the financial health of the Federal 
insurance system that backs up these retirement benefits. The Federal 
insurance system goes by the name of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation. The PBGC's multiemployer pension program may itself become 
insolvent if only one or possibly two larger multiemployer plans fail.
  One of these plans, the United Mine Workers, just lost its last large 
contributing employer to bankruptcy. Without reforms, the Federal 
guaranty system, the PBGC, reports it will be insolvent no later than 
2026. When that happens, the PBGC will not be able to pay either 
current or future retirees more than a very small fraction of the 
benefits they have been promised.
  Consequently, substantial reductions in retirement income are a very 
real possibility for the millions of workers and retirees who depend on 
benefits from these plans. We need to act very soon to protect the 
hard-earned pension benefits of the workers who participate in these 
plans.
  As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am on the floor today 
to join with Chairman Alexander from the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee to release a responsible reform plan to address the 
immediate financial challenges of a number of plans in critical 
financial condition and also at the same time to secure the 
multiemployer pension system over the long term, not just a quick fix 
that is going to last a short period of time.
  As we looked at options for reforming the current system, we relied 
on several important reform principles. I will go through these 
principles.
  First, a reform plan should provide balanced assistance to the most 
poorly funded plans.
  The second principle is that Federal assistance to the failing plans 
should rely on as little taxpayer dollars as possible.
  The third principle is that reforms must promote long-term stability 
of the multiemployer pension system and the long-term solvency of the 
PBGC.
  To help the sickest plans recover their financial footing, our 
proposal creates a special partition option for multiemployer plans.
  I want everybody to know that this is not a new concept. In fact, 
quite simply, it expands on the PBGC's existing authority. It is based 
on banking industry reforms that Congress enacted after the Great 
Depression and at other times.
  The partition option permits employers to maintain a financially 
healthy multiemployer plan by carving out pension benefit liabilities 
owed to participants who have been ``orphaned'' by employers who have 
exited the plan without paying their full share of those liabilities. 
By removing these liabilities, we allow the original plan to continue 
to provide benefits in a self-sustaining manner by funding benefits 
with contributions from current participating employers. In effect, 
partitioning creates a healthy pension that continues to meet all of 
its obligations to retirees and a separate ``sick pension'' that 
requires attention and assistance from the PBGC.
  For this partition program to operate effectively and address the 
plans that are in immediate danger, a limited amount of Federal 
taxpayer funds will be needed to support the PBGC. We expect the 
necessary Federal resources to comprise only a small--I should say very 
small--portion of the financial assistance provided to the faltering 
multiemployer plans, and it is our intent, as we should be fiscally 
responsible, to offset those costs.
  We should also acknowledge the reality that action right now means 
lower taxpayer involvement than if we wait for the PBGC to become 
insolvent, which would lead to a far larger commitment of taxpayer 
funds in the not too distant future. Congress needs to be ahead of the 
real catastrophe we know is coming.
  Over the long run, the reforms we are proposing will be sustained 
primarily by shared-sacrifice funding reforms and a new premium 
structure for all stakeholders of the multiemployer plans.
  Because taxpayer dollars would be at risk if the sickest plans fail 
to move to fully funded status, the proposal also includes a number of 
plan-governance reforms to strengthen multiemployer plans, to protect 
the taxpayers' contributions to the overall reforms, and to shield 
taxpayers from future risks.
  While partitioning addresses one element needed for reform, Senator 
Alexander and I propose to go a step further to make significant 
changes to the management and operation of all multiemployer pension 
plans. This is something that should have been done years ago so that 
plan trustees would have had to act in a responsible way, and maybe we 
wouldn't be where we are today, but we want to make sure this doesn't 
happen in the future. If we go that way--and we must go that way--
moving forward, the entire multiemployer pension system will be better 
funded and more transparent to participants, to sponsoring employers, 
and to government regulators.
  Providing relief to critical and declining plans is contingent on 
making changes to the legal framework of the multiemployer pension 
system to ensure that all plans operate, as people would expect, in a 
financially sound way in the future.
  To help finance the partition relief and to provide a stronger PBGC 
insurance guarantee to participants in the system, our reform proposal 
creates a new premium structure. That structure includes raising the 
flat-rate premium to $80 per participant in a multiemployer plan, 
putting the multiemployer program on par with a single-employer 
guarantee program. The new premium structure also broadens the base on 
which premiums are assessed to more equitably spread the cost of 
insuring benefits and to ensure PBGC solvency. The new structure 
applies a copayment to active workers and retirees. However, because of 
the broader contribution base, the copayments are significantly less 
than the amount of the typical benefit cuts retirees face under current 
law if their plan should fail. Older retirees and disabled participants 
will also be protected.

  In addition, our reform package establishes a variable-rate premium. 
This variable-rate premium, which parallels the variable-rate premium 
that has long applied to single-employer plans, is tied to a plan's 
funding status to manage risks stemming from more poorly funded plans. 
This also creates an incentive for plans to improve their funding over 
time.
  The new premium structure not only helps to secure the finances of 
the PBGC but also funds an increase in the guaranteed benefit level for 
the vast majority of participants in the system. Raising the guaranteed 
benefit will greatly reduce the risk to retirees of significant 
reductions in retirement income, which would otherwise occur if their 
multiemployer plan becomes insolvent.
  While the changes to the premium structure will fundamentally 
strengthen the financial status of the multiemployer pension system and 
the PBGC, the reforms we are proposing make other important structural 
changes to the multiemployer system to help ensure that the entire 
system moves to a well-funded status over the long haul.
  We achieve this goal by addressing key flaws in the current legal 
framework governing multiemployer plans. Current multiemployer plan 
rules do not serve the best interests of workers and retirees. You can 
tell that by the bad condition, financially, some of these plans are in 
today, threatening the retirement of our workers who have paid into 
them over a lifetime. These rules have not been sufficient to keep 
plans in good financial health, and they tend to underestimate 
liabilities and result in insufficient contributions to the plans.
  To ensure that benefit promises offered in a multiemployer plan are 
ultimately met, our proposal strengthens the rules for measuring the 
value of promised pension benefits and the amount of employer 
contributions necessary to pay them when the worker retires. These 
changes will require plan trustees and actuaries to measure and project 
plan assets and liabilities in a more prudent and accurate way than has 
been required under present law.
  These changes also are designed to help move plans toward full 
funding

[[Page S6698]]

and at the same time protect the interests of plan participants and the 
taxpayers who would otherwise be required to bail out these 
multiemployer plans.
  Our reform proposal also improves the so-called zone rules. Plans 
will be required to look further into the future when estimating their 
financial status, and will have to institute a form of stress testing 
to check whether a plan can remain financially sustainable through 
potential economic and demographic stresses. Depending on its health, 
plans will have to bolster the steps they take when signs of financial 
hardship arise. That is a pretty commonsense approach.
  We will also replace current withdrawal-liability rules with a 
simpler, more transparent, and consistent method for determining an 
employer's liability if it withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan.
  We have to look to the future. In doing so, the proposal includes a 
new option for sponsors of multiemployer plans to establish a new 
hybrid pension plan that we are going to call a composite plan. We have 
heard a great deal of interest from smaller businesses and their 
workers about the benefits of a composite plan approach, including less 
costly operations and more certainty in the financing of these plans.
  In closing, let me say that there are no perfect solutions to the 
multiemployer pension crisis. But it is very true that the longer we 
wait, the harder and more expensive this problem gets. But it is clear, 
our solution is far better than allowing the system to continue on its 
current path--to collapse--and far better than merely throwing Federal 
money into plans without changing how they operate. The problem is 
never going to be solved by waiting or by using taxpayers' money.
  The House has essentially advanced a pure, no-strings-attached 
bailout plan that throws taxpayer money to the plans in the hope that 
they can somehow earn returns sufficient to keep them going. We rely a 
great deal on the Congressional Budget Office around here for estimates 
of the future, and the nonpartisan CBO has told us that the House's 
proposal will not generate sustainability of pension plans or the 
sustainability of the PBGC. So we had better not spend our time on 
something the Congressional Budget Office says just isn't going to 
bring a solution and definitely not a long-term solution to these 
issues.

  In contrast, the proposal that Senator Alexander and I are releasing 
today addresses the immediate needs of the few multiemployer plans 
facing immediate crisis in a manner that protects participant benefits 
and also ensures a sustainable multiemployer pension system for the 
long haul, and it does this all in a fiscally responsible way.
  Our proposal is not a giveaway to corporations or to unions, and it 
is a better deal for the taxpayers than a future that would be an even 
larger problem and PBGC funding needs that will almost surely be met 
with a taxpayer bailout.
  All participants in the system would make a sacrifice. Let me make 
that clear. All participants in the system are going to sacrifice--
employers, unions, workers, and retirees. I am sure each one of those 
groups isn't going to consider this fair and responsible, but with a 
problem like this, if everybody doesn't give a little bit, it is never 
going to be fair and responsible anyway. But with some shared pain will 
come significant shared gain that will be to the benefit of over 1.5 
million participants in about 125 multiemployer plans that are in 
serious financial jeopardy.
  Without changes to the current system, we can't say for sure that 
people are going to get the benefits that they sacrificed for over a 
lifetime of work. But our plan, we are confident, will benefit all 
multiemployer plans and their participants by providing a stronger 
system for the long haul and by promoting long-term solvency of the 
PBGC.
  Senator Alexander and I offer this proposal as a path forward for a 
multiemployer pension system that we all know is in crisis.
  Now, as we turn to getting this job done, I look forward to working 
with my colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to 
advance this proposal. We all know that just because you lay something 
on the table, that it is not necessarily going to be passed that way. 
So maybe there is some compromise needed. But whether it is this 
proposal or a little bit of compromise, we have to get this piece of 
legislation to the President's desk before more pension holders face 
losses of the benefits they have earned and benefits that they were 
promised.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2486

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to talk about what 
some observers have called one of the best historically black colleges 
and universities in our country--Delaware State University in Dover, 
DE, home of the Hornets.
  For a number of years, I was a naval flight officer in the Vietnam 
war and then came back to the United States and moved to Delaware and 
got an MBA at the University of Delaware. Right away after that, I went 
to work at what became the Delaware Economic Office. We were 
headquartered at the campus of Delaware State College.
  Delaware State College was an HBCU and was not a well-funded college, 
not one that was in the favor, frankly, of the Governor and 
legislature, for the most part, and was a bit of a stepchild.
  I used to think: Boy, wouldn't it be great to be able to help 
transform Delaware State College into something historic, memorable, 
and outstanding.
  Later on, I would be elected Governor--about 15 years later--and have 
the chance to work with the fellow who was the president of Delaware 
State University at the time and to transform, with the help of the 
Delaware General Assembly, Delaware State College into Delaware State 
University.
  Today, of all the HBCUs in the country, I think its latest rating is 
No. 5, and I think there are 70 or 75 of them in all. They just 
reported that their enrollment for the coming year will reach 5,000 
students, all in undergraduate, graduate, master's and Ph.D. programs, 
which is a record. We are proud of the Hornets and the great job they 
are doing educating people.
  Last month, in one of my frequent visits to Delaware State, I took a 
campus tour unlike any other, from the cockpit of a brand-new Vulcanair 
V1.0 single-engine aircraft. We flew all over Kent County, north of 
Dover. We had a chance to do some approaches. It was a lot of fun, and 
it was basically a reminder that Delaware State provides undergraduate 
and graduate programs for all kinds of training and educational needs. 
One of the key ones right now and one of the most interesting, at least 
for a naval flight officer, is that Delaware State is the largest 
producer of pilots and aviation professionals of color in the country. 
I believe they have over 100 students and every one of them, when they 
graduate, has a job waiting for them. Some are pilots and others do a 
variety of work for aviation.
  Today, we have about 157 million people who go to work in this 
country, and we have about 5 million jobs where nobody will show up. 
One of those areas where we need people is in the aviation world, and 
Delaware State is providing that. When the plane landed earlier this 
year at the airport just north of Dover, I held a roundtable with the 
Delaware State University executive vice president and provost, Dr. 
Tony Allen. We talked with administrators and students about a 
bipartisan bill called the FUTURE Act, which was discussed on the floor 
today and in previous days.
  The FUTURE Act, as you will recall, was introduced by Senator Jones 
along with Senator Scott from South Carolina, and would provide a 
little over $255 million annually to minority-serving institutions of 
higher education including about $85 million to HBCUs for an additional 
2 years through fiscal year 2021.
  Almost $900,000 of that money will go directly to Delaware State 
University.

[[Page S6699]]

You might ask: What would Delaware State do with that money? They use 
this Federal funding to help support STEM and teacher education 
programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels and to ensure that 
students at Delaware State have access to the best research tools. 
Specifically, this funding is used to help modernize classrooms at DSU, 
to improve math instruction, and to help recruit young men of color to 
teach in K-through-12 classrooms so that all students have mentors they 
can look up to.
  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 2 
percent of teachers in the American public school system are African-
American men, but 20 percent or more of the students are African-
American males.
  Think about that. A lot of these African-American males, frankly, 
haven't had some of the best mentors and role models in their lives 
growing up, and we have so few teachers of color that are minority 
male. The FUTURE Act funding, I think, is a good step for Congress to 
take to bridge that gap. I think it is a good example of how the 
Federal Government supports this critical mission at Delaware State and 
at HBCUs across the country.
  Back in early September, the House of Representatives did its job and 
voted to reauthorize this funding through the bipartisan FUTURE Act. 
Unfortunately, the Senate has not followed the lead of the House in 
this critical funding for HBCUs which lapsed on September 30.
  Before I yield to Senator Coons, I just wanted to say that my 
recollection is--and I might have this wrong, but I am looking for my 
staff, who would be sitting right here in front of me telling me if I 
had the right numbers--that 2 percent of teachers who are in public 
schools in America and I think in Delaware are men of color. They are 
African American. Almost 20 percent, maybe 25 percent, of the students 
in the public school system are people of color and about half of those 
are male. We need to do a better job.
  As Governor, I started a mentoring program. We recruited, when I was 
Governor, 10,000 mentors--a lot of them to work with children of color. 
A lot of them have grown up in homes where they didn't have a positive 
male role model in their life. That is why the mentoring program is so 
important. That is why we especially need minority male teachers who 
are African American. That is not all we need, but it is a big part of 
what we need. Over half of the minority male teachers that we have in 
Delaware in our schools were educated at Delaware State University--
over half--and we need more of them.
  Senator Coons has joined me on the floor. I am enormously proud of 
Delaware State University and the leadership they have today and in the 
past, and proud to have been an honorary Hornet, and proud to yield to 
my colleague, Senator Coons, who has been right there fighting for 
Delaware State University.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague from 
our home State of Delaware. I come to the floor to join a number of my 
colleagues who are speaking on a pressing issue, the critical lapse in 
funding for hundreds of colleges and universities across our Nation.
  On September 30, $255 million in annual Federal funding for 
historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving 
institutions expired.
  Since this fund was first created, it has supported 400 HBCUs and 
MSIs, historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving 
institutions, across our country, including 97 HBCUs last year. This 
lapse has created real uncertainty and harm to these organizations and 
these universities, their students, their employees, and the public.
  I just wanted to join my colleagues in highlighting the importance of 
this funding. I want to speak specifically to the HBCU of which 
Delaware is so proud--Delaware State University.
  Delaware State is an engine for educational equity and access, for 
innovation and for leadership in our State, our region, and our Nation.
  Delaware State University is one of the country's top public HBCUs. 
Its graduates go on to successful careers in all sorts of industries. 
Graduates from Delaware State have become some of our State's best 
nurses, teachers, business leaders, social workers, and Senate staff.
  DSU's research programs are important drivers for innovation in a 
State with a proud history of invention and innovation. It is home to 
the Delaware Center for Neuroscience Research, a partnership of 
institutions across our State working to advance our understanding of 
how our brains form thoughts and memories and feelings, and how they 
change over time as we age.
  It is also home to OSCAR, the Optical Science Center for Applied 
Research, where research that is in part federally funded is helping to 
speed early detection of disease, supporting our soldiers in better 
deterring and detecting threats, and equipping NASA missions, including 
the Mars Rover, with improved sensors.
  To put it simply, we are very proud of Delaware State, and there is a 
lot of which to be proud. DSU grads are so impressive that I have asked 
several of them to join my staff here in Washington. Their commitment 
to equity and excellence is why we can't allow HBCUs around the 
country, such as Delaware State, to lose out on vitally needed Federal 
funding.
  Last year, this program provided nearly $1 million--$887,000--to 
Delaware State, which is about 20 percent of their title III funding. 
These funds have a direct impact on students and funds critical 
science, math, and educator preparation programs.
  There is no good reason for the Senate to ignore our HBCUs and MSIs 
and deny them the funding they deserve. In September, the House passed 
a bipartisan, budget-neutral, 2-year extension of this critical 
funding, which is known as the FUTURE Act. While I share Senator 
Alexander's commitment to permanently extending this funding, we must 
not ask institutions to put their budgeting and planning on hold while 
we here in the Senate negotiate over many other pressing issues in 
higher education.
  I urge my colleagues to pass the FUTURE Act immediately, and with 
that, I would like to make a motion.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 
212, H.R. 2486. I ask unanimous consent that the Murray amendment at 
the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a 
third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I 
will object--I am disappointed that my colleagues are offering such a 
short-term, piecemeal approach toward resolving the problems of our 
historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions, when I 
have repeatedly offered a much better idea, and they have blocked it. I 
will offer it again in just a moment. I know the Senator from North 
Carolina is here to speak on the same subject.
  Compared to what I have offered, they are offering a short-term, 2-
year, budget gimmick-supported idea that will have a difficult time 
passing the Senate. What I have offered and they have blocked is 
permanent funding of historically Black colleges and minority-serving 
institutions--permanent funding--at the level of $255 million a year, 
properly funded. That is No. 1. There is assurance from the U.S. 
Department of Education that every single historically Black 
institution--there are 97 of them--have enough funding to go until next 
October. Even the Senate ought to be able to do its job in that period 
of time.
  At the same time, I have offered the Alexander-Jones bill offered by 
the distinguished Senator from Alabama, which would simplify the 
Federal aid application form called the FAFSA for 8 million minority 
students, among 20 million families in this country.
  Why would anybody want to take a short-term, piecemeal approach that 
is based on a budget gimmick that couldn't pass the Senate compared 
with permanent funding for historically Black colleges and a bipartisan 
proposal to change the hated, dreaded FAFSA by reducing the number of 
questions you have to answer from 108 questions to between 18 and 30? 
This

[[Page S6700]]

document is the single biggest impediment to minority students going to 
college in America today, and the Democrats are blocking the passage of 
a bipartisan bill.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I want to thank the chairman of the 
committee for objecting. I want to tell my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle that I appreciate their being here giving the passionate 
speeches they have because they made the case for Senator Alexander's 
bipartisan bill.
  You see, incorporated in this legislation is an initiative by Senator 
Jones and Senator Baldwin. Anybody who makes this out to be a partisan 
piece of legislation is just flat wrong. I have more historical Black 
colleges in North Carolina than any State can claim. When those 
chancellors and presidents have been presented with the question: Do 
you want 2 years or permanent, they all said permanent. They didn't 
know there was a permanent option.
  I say this to my three colleagues because none of them are on the 
committee: There is a permanent option for funding historically Black 
colleges. It is in the chairman's bill. We have been told that the 
FUTURE Act needs to be passed. The FUTURE Act is 2 years long. There is 
not much of a future there. We ought to match its title with the 
chairman's bill because this really does address the future.
  The No. 1 concern of historically Black institutions is 
predictability of funding. The chairman's bill is permanent. We are not 
going to come in here in 2 years and seek another reauthorization, but 
the benefit is that we are passing good legislation.
  Let me point out to my colleagues that it is important to read 
legislation. The FUTURE Act is funded by whacking the funding for the 
State guaranty agencies. By taking away the account maintenance fees 
that these State-based organizations receive to administer loans, we 
are robbing Peter to pay Paul. These same students who are probably 
going to go to historically Black universities are also seeking State-
based loans to do it, and we are providing the institutions 2 years of 
predictability on one side, and we are taking away the fees that are 
needed to administer the loans to allow them to be able to afford it. 
This is when it is important to look at the details.
  The way the FUTURE Act is funded, it actually hurts all institutions 
in North Carolina. Just today, I heard from the North Carolina State 
Education Assistance Authority about how important this funding is for 
their daily functions in administering student loans. So I believe 
there is a better way to extend HBC funding but also not to hurt 
students.
  At the end of the day, our focus--the human face we see is the 
student who benefits from the educational opportunity they have been 
given. I would tell you that the FUTURE Act flunks on all counts. It is 
not permanent. It takes away from some because of how it is funded. We 
have an opportunity with Chairman Alexander's bill, the Student Aid 
Improvement Act, which would extend this title III funding permanently, 
but it would also include other bipartisan support changes in higher 
education, like expanding Pell grants. Every Member of the Senate has 
sat on this floor and said we have to do something on Pell grants. Here 
is your opportunity.
  It doesn't fit in the timeframe of passing a bill that passed the 
House that provides 2 years of funding, but we have a bipartisan piece 
of legislation. It simplifies the financial student financial aid 
process. You saw the chairman hold up the form. There is nobody who can 
defend the continuation of that form. It should be one page. The 
chairman of the Education Committee has tried for now 5 years to 
transition that to one page. You might look at us and say: Well, we can 
do this very quickly, but we need time to talk about this. We have 
taken 5 years to do this, and the people on the committee know this.
  This is the sixth time you have come to the floor and asked unanimous 
consent to do the exact same thing: Pass this; don't look at anything 
else.
  No, that is wrong, but it is not wrong because we are in the 
majority. It is wrong because it is not serving the students for whom 
we are supposed to be here setting policy. It simplifies aid award 
letters to students. It is actually easy to tell them they got their 
student aid. It is cumbersome. If you are on the committee, you 
understand the agony they go through. We are wiping all of that away.
  I believe Chairman Alexander has a better path. I also would like to 
remind my colleagues that while this funding should be extended, there 
has been no lapse. Let me state that again. It should be extended, and 
there has been no lapse.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter I received 
from Secretary DeVos, stating that the title III funding in question is 
available through September 2021, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   The Secretary of Education,

                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 2019.
       Dear [Redacted] I write to clarify the status of grants 
     under Title III, Part F of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     in light of the enactment of the Continuing Appropriations 
     Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019 (Pub. L. No. 116-
     59), signed on September 27, 2019.
       Initially, I want to note that the new law has no effect on 
     funds that we recently awarded in the Title III, Part F 
     programs. Funds obligated in fiscal year (FY) 2019 have 
     already been made available to grantees under all Part F 
     programs in the Department of Education's (Department) G5 
     System for the project period beginning on October 1, 2019, 
     and ending on September 30, 2020. Those funds will remain 
     available to grantees for allowable uses during this period. 
     In addition, in the Part F programs that award grants 
     competitively, the Department has carried over FY 2019 funds 
     into FY 2020 to support noncompeting continuation awards and 
     supplements for project periods from October 1, 2020, through 
     September 30, 2021.
       The Department's ability to make additional formula grants 
     in FY 2020 under Part F for Historically Black Colleges and 
     Universities (HBCUs) and Tribally Controlled Colleges and 
     Universities, and to conduct new competitions for FY 2021, 
     depends on the availability of congressionally appropriated 
     funds. However, this will have no bearing on the grant funds 
     that have already been made available to grantees for the 
     next 12 months.
       This Administration is committed to each and every HBCU and 
     other minority-serving institutions and the important work 
     they do in educating historically underrepresented student 
     populations. If you have any questions about these programs, 
     please reach out to your program officer in the Department's 
     Office of Postsecondary Education.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Betsy DeVos.

  Mr. BURR. On that basis alone, there is not the sense of urgency that 
some have come to the floor six times and suggested. I don't disagree 
with any of my colleagues that this is something we need to do now, but 
a 2-year temporary bill that doesn't accomplish any of the other 
reforms when we have had 5 years of bipartisan work--why would we not 
take this option? Why would we not sit down and find a way for Chairman 
Alexander's bill--which has many Democratic initiatives in it--to pass 
and provide historically Black colleges and universities with permanent 
funding, provide students with a one-page form to fill out for student 
aid, provide an expedited way for the notification when their loans 
have been approved? We are there, but for some reason, some want us to 
do a 2-year temporary fix. It is wrong. I thank the chairman for 
objecting.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I see the Senator from Ohio. I intend 
to offer my alternative to which, I gather, someone plans to object. I 
will go ahead and do that unless he wants to speak at this point.
  Mr. BROWN. Go ahead, Senator Alexander.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2557

  Mr. ALEXANDER. What I will do is make my offer quickly, and then I 
will make my speech following the objection.
  Let me summarize, to begin with, that what has just happened is I 
have objected to a short-term, piecemeal extension of funding for 
historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions because 
it is a bill that, I think, will have great difficulty passing the 
Senate because of the way it is not properly funded. What I am about to 
offer, and which I will speak on after the objection is made, is 
permanent funding for historically Black colleges at the level of $255 
million a year--permanent funding--as opposed to short-term, piecemeal 
funding as part of a

[[Page S6701]]

package of higher education legislation that has been prepared and 
cosponsored by 29 Senators--more Democrats than Republicans--with the 
principal other provision being reducing the questions in the FAFSA, 
the Federal aid application form, from 108 to between 18 and 30. This 
is a bill introduced by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Jones, and I, 
which our Senate committee has been working on for 5 years. It is the 
single most important impediment to keeping minority students from 
going to college in our State--and I think most States, according to 
our former Governor--and it would help 8 million minority students who 
fill out this complicated form every year.
  I will speak more to that in just a minute, but that is what I am 
about to ask my friends on the other side to permit me to pass.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 2557--the bill I just 
described, the permanent funding of historically Black colleges and the 
simplification of the FAFSA and other measures--and the Senate proceed 
to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.
  I and my colleagues here--Senator Carper, Senator Coons, and 
prominent Democrats in the education debate--have deep concerns about 
Senator Alexander's proposed micropackage. To be sure, it is a 
micropackage of higher education bills. It is not a complete 
reauthorization.
  Our caucus has been clear about what a comprehensive bill should look 
like. It addresses access, affordability, accountability, and campus 
safety. This Alexander proposal falls well short.
  The Senator from Tennessee says this package is bipartisan. That is 
sort of true but not entirely. He has made a number of changes to the 
underlying bipartisan bills that do not have the support of lead 
Democrats on this and, in some cases, the lead Republicans of the 
original bills. For example, this package includes a limited repeal of 
the ban on Pell grants for incarcerated adults instead of the full 
repeal of the ban included in the bipartisan bill. Our bill adds to 
Pell grants.
  His version of the short-term Pell Grant Program makes significant 
changes to the bipartisan JOBS Act of 2019, a bill of which I am an 
original cosponsor. The JOBS Act excludes for-profit colleges from 
eligibility for the program. We know the Trump administration is all 
about for-profit institutions, with the Secretary of Education leading 
the charge. This version allows for-profit colleges--the sorts of 
schools we know mislead and scam students in too many cases--to sneak 
their way into eligibility.
  One of the things I admire about the chairman of the HELP Committee--
and have admired since I met him 20-some years ago--was his work not 
just as Secretary of Education but his work as president of the 
University of Tennessee. He knows what for-profit colleges do for and 
to far too many students. His legislation removes a number of the 
protections meant to ensure programs eligible for this funding are 
actually high-quality ones that educate students. These are just a 
couple of the ways this micropackage is different from the original 
bipartisan bills. We know the micropackage cannot pass the House. 
Chairman Scott and Speaker Pelosi have been clear that they want 
comprehensive reform. A comprehensive HEA reauthorization can pass. 
That is not what this is.
  I hope we can come to a bipartisan agreement, but as we work 
together, we can't hold hostage historically Black colleges and 
universities. Most of them are in the South. Most of them are in the 
States of my colleagues who are from the South. Most of them are in 
Republican States with Republican Senators. As mentioned by Senator 
Carper and Senator Coons, of Delaware, my State, which is similar to 
Delaware, has historically Black colleges. In Ohio, Wilberforce and 
Central State are prominent institutions that matter so much to our 
State. For the nearly 2 years now since the Trump administration has 
been in office, these schools have been in fiscal limbo.
  I know Senator Alexander cares about these schools, but there is no 
evidence that the President of the United States does. They need their 
funding extended now. The mandatory funding, which is vital to these 
schools, ran out on September 30 because the Senate refused to act and 
because the President didn't seem to care. The House did its job in 
passing the FUTURE Act. Now HBCUs are facing impossible decisions in 
the face of dwindling funding. The Senate needs to immediately take up 
and vote on the bill the House already passed to provide full, 
mandatory funding for MSIs and HBCUs.
  We all agree--Senator Burr, Senator Alexander, the two Senators from 
Delaware, and Senator Cardin, who has just joined us--that HBCUs have 
fostered generations of Black leaders. They are a critical part of our 
Nation's higher ed system. These schools have rich legacies and proven 
track records of educating students of color and other underrepresented 
students.
  Wilberforce was founded in 1856 in Wilberforce, OH, as the Nation's 
first private institution of higher ed for Black students. Central 
State, which is in the same town across the road in Wilberforce, has a 
rich legacy of educating students as an 1890 land grant institution. We 
have helped it this year through the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry. It is further tasked with strengthening 
research, extension, and teaching in food and ag science.
  We know that without our HBCUs, millions of Black students would have 
been denied the opportunity to pursue higher ed. HBCUs account for 
approximately a quarter of all of Black students who earn bachelor's 
degrees and nearly a third of all of the African-American students who 
earn STEM bachelor's degrees. Our country owes an enormous debt to 
these schools that we don't seem to be paying back. That is why it is 
unconscionable that the Senate has abandoned these schools and these 
students.
  I have heard from schools about how their budgets have been thrown 
into chaos. They tell me that academia is about planning, and many of 
them already operate close to the margins. HBCUs have already received 
letters from the Department of Education telling them that they are not 
getting future funding and that they can't use any Federal funding for 
long-term projects. It could mean program cuts and layoffs. It means no 
long-term construction projects. It means not hiring permanent faculty 
and not purchasing major equipment. Imagine operating a school like 
that.
  It is shameful that in 2019 we still ignore schools that serve 
students of color by treating this as anything other than a must-pass 
bill. I know that very few African Americans voted for President Trump, 
and I know he seems to care for only those people who voted for him. 
Yet this is an obligation. Senator Alexander wants to fulfill it, but 
he is operating in a straitjacket with this President.
  It is so important that we do this. The FUTURE Act is budget neutral, 
and it is fully paid for. We use the same offset the administration has 
used. It is a bipartisan pay-for, not a gimmick.
  I should add that less than 2 years ago, this Senate and President 
Trump had no problem passing a $1 trillion tax cut for corporations and 
the wealthy that wasn't paid for. We have seen that under Republican 
leadership in the White House. We have seen what has happened to our 
budget debt, and we know corporations have had huge tax cuts. We know 
70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent. Yet this 
body can't take care of historically Black colleges. They hold schools 
that serve students of color to a different standard.
  I am hopeful that Senator Alexander, whom I trust, and Senator 
Murray, whom I trust, will continue to negotiate a truly bipartisan and 
truly comprehensive higher ed reauthorization that supports HBCUs. I 
support those efforts. That is the way forward for the priorities that 
Senator Alexander has outlined in his micropackage and for the updates 
and reauthorizations all of our students and families need. HBCUs and 
MSIs can't wait

[[Page S6702]]

until that process is over. They need action now. They have all had to 
overcome enough hurdles every day in order to educate their students. 
The U.S. Senate should not be one of those hurdles. We need to pass the 
FUTURE Act now.
  Accordingly, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I see the Senator from Maryland, but 
I would like to take a few minutes to describe the proposal to which 
Senator Brown just objected.
  I appreciate the Senator from Ohio in his saying that he hopes that 
Senator Murray and I can do what we usually do, which is to take issues 
within our Education Committee and work them out and present them to 
the Senate as a whole, but that is not the way this came up. This came 
up suddenly, and no one talked to me about it. Here we are when, for 5 
years, we have been in the midst of reauthorizing higher education. 
Permanently funding historically Black colleges has always been an 
important part of that discussion when suddenly here comes this bill as 
if there were an emergency.
  What I heard my friend from Ohio say is that he objects to my 
proposal as a microproposal, as a small proposal, but he is suggesting 
an even smaller proposal. He is suggesting a 2-year fix that, in my 
opinion, can't pass the Senate because of the way it is funded.
  Plus, why would you want a 2-year fix when you have the chairman of 
the Education Committee working for the permanent funding of 
historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions? This is 
what I have offered on the floor, and that is what has just now been 
objected to by the Democrats.
  At the same time, he mentioned a number of bills that he thought 
needed some changes. The request I made that was objected to also 
included simplifying FAFSA, which is the Federal aid application form 
that 20 million students fill out every year. Let's put a human face on 
that.
  The President of Southwest Tennessee Community College in Memphis, 
which is a largely minority institution in terms of its students--I see 
my colleague from Tennessee is presiding today, and she knows this 
institution well--told me they lose 1,500 students every semester 
because of the complexity of this form. There are 108 questions. A 
bipartisan working group, including Senator Bennet, of Colorado, a 
Democrat; Senator Jones, of Alabama, a Democrat; Senator King, of 
Maine, an Independent; and many others on our side, we have reduced 
these 108 questions to between 18 and 30. It has the support of the 
student aid administrators from across the country. It has the support 
of college presidents who see their students turned away because their 
parents and their grandparents see this as too complex.
  Former Governor of Tennessee Bill Haslam led our legislature to 
create 2 free years of college tuition in Tennessee, but first you have 
to fill this out. Governor Haslam has told me the single biggest 
impediment to low-income Tennesseans getting those 2 years of free 
education is the complexity of that form.
  Why would the Senator object to doing it when we have been working on 
it for 5 years and have a bipartisan bill to get it done? Why don't we 
pass it? Why don't we make it the law? What do we say to those 1,500 
students who don't get to go to college because of this?
  At the same time, at the other end of our State, the president of 
East Tennessee State University tells me that 70 percent of his student 
body is subjected to verification. The way this system works is you 
have to give some information to the IRS and some information to the 
Department of Education, and if you make one little mistake, they jerk 
your Pell grant while they figure out what the problem is. Seventy 
percent of the students were subjected to that verification, and some 
of them lost their scholarships while that happened. That is totally 
unnecessary.
  People in Tennessee ask me: If that is true, why don't you pass it?
  That is the question I am asking my friends because I just asked the 
Senate to pass it, and the Senator objected. Why don't we pass it? Why 
don't we make it the law? It is not as if I just showed up one day with 
this. We have been all the way through our process of hearings. It has 
been through working groups of Democratic and Republican Senators. It 
ought to be done.
  There is no need for us to come to the floor and say we need to pass 
a short-term, 2-year fix for historically Black colleges when, at the 
same time, you could have permanent funding for historically Black 
colleges and could fix the Federal aid application form that 8 million 
minority students fill out every year--8 million students. What are the 
Senators going to say to them about why they are not going to make it 
easier for them to go to college when we are here, arguing about a 
short-term, piecemeal fix for historically Black colleges?
  In a way, I am glad we are having this discussion because I have been 
trying to bring this to the attention of my colleagues and if you go 
home and talk to the families, they will tell you that 20 million fill 
this out every year. In Tennessee, it is 400,000. And college aid 
administrators will tell you that.

  I will give another example. I was in West Tennessee a couple of 
weeks ago at an event that was sponsored by the Ayers family. For 20 
years, they have given money to help rural kids succeed in college. 
What the Ayers have discovered is that instead of spending their money 
on scholarships, they are spending it on counselors because counselors 
help students more than the money does. They have found there are lots 
of scholarships, but it is the counselors who make the difference. Yet 
what do the counselors spend their time doing? They help students 
answer these unnecessary questions.
  So we are blocking and impeding the very students the Senator is 
claiming he wants to help when he objects to this bill I offered today.
  I want to make it clear that I will come to the floor every day, if I 
need to, and offer legislation for the permanent funding of 
historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions, which 
will be fully paid for, and a bipartisan proposal to simplify the FAFSA 
from 108 questions to 18 to 30 questions, which is estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office to allow for 250,000 new American students 
to receive Pell grants as a result of the simplicity of what we have 
done.
  I am disappointed that we haven't come to a bipartisan result on 
that. My friends who are here today know very well that this is the way 
I like to work. I believe it is hard to get to the U.S. Senate, that it 
is hard to stay here, and that while you are here, you might as well 
try to accomplish something. That is what I want to do. I hope we can 
do it on higher education.
  When we accomplish it, I hope we can say we have agreed on the 
permanent funding for historically Black colleges and that we have 
elevated the importance of this complicated FAFSA to the attention of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle so that we say: Let's get this 
done. I don't want to go home any longer and have people ask me: Why 
don't you pass that? Why do I have to give the same information to two 
different parts of the Federal Government? Why are you discouraging the 
very low-income students who ought to be going to college?
  I am disappointed in this result today, and I intend to continue to 
work for the permanent funding of historically Black colleges.
  My last sentence will be this: I want all of the presidents of the 97 
institutions to know that the U.S. Department of Education has said 
there is full Federal funding for historically Black colleges and 
minority-serving institutions for another year. Another year ought to 
be plenty of time for us to reject this short-term fix and to adopt a 
permanent solution as well as to simplify the FAFSA, have short-term 
Pell grants, and take up a variety of other proposals that ought to be 
a part of the Higher Education Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.