[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 132-138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, and Mr. Heinrich):
  S. 40. A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to 
promulgate regulations that prohibit certain preferential treatment or 
prioritization of Internet traffic; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for nearly a year now, Americans across the 
country have made their voices heard on the critical issue of how we 
protect an open Internet. Their message has been loud and clear--they 
want meaningful rules that protect the Internet as a platform for free 
expression and innovation. Consumers want to see the online space as we 
have always known it, as a place where the best ideas and services can 
reach users on merit rather than based on a financial relationship with 
a broadband provider. Last Congress I joined with my friend in the 
House, Representative Doris Matsui of California, to introduce 
bicameral legislation requiring the Federal Communications Commission, 
FCC, to ban ``pay-to-play'' deals on the Internet. Today, I am pleased 
to once again join with her to reintroduce this important bill.
  When we originally introduced this legislation last June, nearly 
300,000 Americans had commented on FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's open 
Internet proposal. That number alone would have been an impressive 
level of public engagement. Since that time, however, the number of 
public comments filed at the FCC has swelled to nearly 4 million. As 
the comments show, consumers are concerned that without meaningful 
rules the Internet will become a place where broadband providers charge 
tolls to websites or applications for them to reach end users. This 
would represent a fundamental departure from the way in which consumers 
and entrepreneurs interact with the Internet. A two-tiered Internet 
based on ability to pay would harm the innovative and competitive 
environment we have all come to expect in the online world.
  Like an overwhelming number of the public, I have grave concerns that 
a pay-to-play Internet would allow larger companies to squeeze out 
their competitors, stifling competition online. A small web company in 
Vermont that develops an idea to rival the largest Silicon Valley 
titans should not have to worry that its access to consumers could be 
blocked because its competitors have a paid arrangement with broadband 
providers. The next generation of Internet companies and retailers 
should have the same protections that allowed a company like the 
Vermont Country Store to become a thriving online success.
  Pay-to-play arrangements would also harm consumers, who would not 
have the assurance that the service they are paying for will provide 
the speed that they want. Too many Americans currently lack real choice 
in broadband providers, particularly those in rural areas. A pay-to-
play Internet could result in whole swaths of the Internet becoming 
functionally inaccessible to the customers of certain Internet 
providers. This is not the Internet we know today, and the FCC or 
Congress must act to ensure that it does not come to pass.
  The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act is straightforward. It 
requires the FCC to establish rules preventing providers from charging 
websites for priority access. It also requires rules to prevent 
providers from prioritizing their own affiliated content or services. 
These are simple rules to preserve the equal platform we know online 
today.
  This legislation should not be used by opponents of meaningful open 
Internet rules to undermine the FCC's important work to craft open 
Internet rules that will protect consumers and innovators. To the 
contrary, this bill sets out important policy positions that the FCC 
should adopt in its current consideration of open Internet rules. The 
FCC should not hesitate to act at its February meeting to ban these 
deals outright.
  The importance of an open Internet is an issue that resonates in 
homes and businesses across the country. I spent significant time last 
year listening to voices outside of Washington, particularly those of 
Vermonters, so that I could hear firsthand about the impact the 
Internet has had on small businesses and consumers. The Judiciary 
Committee held two hearings on this issue, including one in Vermont, 
where I heard exactly these kinds of stories. These are not people 
looking for a handout or special treatment--these are entrepreneurs and 
consumers who simply want the Internet to remain an equalizing tool 
regardless of where you live or how deep your pockets are.
  There should be widespread agreement to prevent special deals that 
harm consumers and dampen online innovation. The FCC and Congress 
should rightly focus on this timely and significant issue to protect 
innovation and competition online.
  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. 40

       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 ``Online Competition and 
     Consumer Choice Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. FCC REGULATIONS PROHIBITING CERTAIN PREFERENTIAL 
                   TREATMENT OR PRIORITIZATION OF INTERNET 
                   TRAFFIC.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate 
     regulations that--
       (1) prohibit a broadband provider from entering into an 
     agreement with an edge provider under which the broadband 
     provider agrees, for consideration, in transmitting network 
     traffic over the broadband Internet access service of an end 
     user, to give preferential treatment or priority to the 
     traffic of such edge provider over the traffic of other edge 
     providers; and
       (2) prohibit a broadband provider, in transmitting network 
     traffic over the broadband Internet access service of an end 
     user, from giving preferential treatment or priority to the 
     traffic of content, applications, services, or devices that 
     are provided or operated by such broadband provider, or an 
     affiliate of such broadband provider, over the traffic of 
     other content, applications, services, or devices.
       (b) Rules of Construction.--
       (1) Certain traffic not affected.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed as superseding any obligation or 
     authorization a

[[Page 133]]

     broadband provider may have to address the needs of emergency 
     communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national 
     security authorities, consistent with or as permitted by 
     applicable law, or as limiting the ability of the provider to 
     do so.
       (2) Clarification of authority.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed as limiting the authority of the 
     Commission under any other provision of law, including the 
     authority to promulgate regulations prohibiting
     or limiting preferential treatment or prioritization of the 
     traffic of an edge provider by a broadband provider under GN 
     Docket No. 14-28 (relating to the matter of protecting and 
     promoting the open Internet).
       (c) Enforcement.--For purposes of sections 503(b) and 504 
     of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b); 504), 
     this section shall be considered to be a part of such Act. 
     With respect to enforcement under this section only, the 
     following modifications of such section 503(b) shall apply:
       (1) Paragraph (5) shall not apply.
       (2) Paragraph (6) shall be applied by substituting the 
     following: ``No forfeiture penalty shall be determined or 
     imposed against any person under this subsection if the 
     violation charged occurred more than 3 years prior to the 
     date of issuance of the required notice or notice of apparent 
     liability.''.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 153).
       (2) Broadband internet access service.--The term 
     ``broadband Internet access service'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 8.11 of title 47, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (3) Broadband provider.--The term ``broadband provider'' 
     means a provider of broadband Internet access service.
       (4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (5) Edge provider.--The term ``edge provider'' means an 
     individual, institution, or other entity that provides--
       (A) any content, application, or service over the Internet; 
     or
       (B) a device used for accessing any content, application, 
     or service over the Internet.
       (6) End user.--The term ``end user'' means an individual, 
     institution, or other entity that uses a broadband Internet 
     access service.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 81. A bill to authorize preferential treatment for certain imports 
from Nepal, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nepal 
Trade Preferences Act.
  This legislation is simple and straightforward. It grants duty-free 
status to imports of Nepalese garments for a ten year period.
  I have been a friend of Nepal and the Nepalese people for over 25 
years. I have witnessed its political struggle and sadly the 
deterioration of its ready-made garment industry.
  The Nepal Trade Preferences Act bill will promote much-needed 
economic development and contribute to lasting political stability in 
one of the world's poorest countries.
  Allow me to go over some basic facts of everyday life in Nepal.
  Nepal has a per capita income of $730.
  Approximately 25 percent of the Nepal's 24 million people live in 
poverty.
  The unemployment rate in Nepal stands at a staggering 47 percent; and 
most Nepalese live on $2 a day.
  The 2005 phase-out of the Micro-Fiber Arrangement, which established 
export quotas from developing nations, has deeply damaged Nepal's 
apparel industry.
  Instead of continuing to import garments from Nepal, U.S. importers 
have shifted their orders to China, Bangladesh and other low-cost labor 
markets.
  In fact, the number of people employed by the Nepalese garment 
industry dropped from over 90,000 people to less than 5,000 today; 
textile and apparel exports from Nepal to the United States fell from 
approximately $95 million in 2005 to $45 million in 2013; and the 
number of garment factories plummeted from 212 to 30.
  Despite Nepal's poverty and the near-collapse of the garment 
industry, Nepalese garment imports are still subject to an average U.S. 
tariff of 11.7 percent and can be as high as 32 percent.
  In essence, we are unfairly taxing the imports of a highly 
impoverished country that cannot afford it. Taxing textile and apparel 
imports from Nepal, which constitute .01 percent of all U.S. imports, 
makes no sense.
  I would point out that U.S. tariffs on Nepalese garments stand in 
contrast to the policies of the European Union, Canada, and Australia, 
which all allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.
  It should come as no surprise, then, that while the U.S. share of 
Nepalese garment exports has fallen, the European Union's share has 
risen from 18.14 percent in 2006 to 46 percent in 2010.
  The purpose of the ``Nepal Trade Preferences Act'' is to ensure that 
we provide Nepal with the same trade preferences afforded to it by 
other developed countries. No more, no less.
  Humanitarian and development assistance programs should be critical 
components of our efforts to help Nepal. I was proud to support the 
President's budget request of $77 million for Nepal in fiscal year 
2015.
  But assistance is no substitute for organic economic development. We 
should help the Nepalese people help themselves by reopening the U.S. 
market to a once thriving export industry.
  In the end, economic growth and prosperity can be best achieved when 
Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global 
marketplace.
  With this legislation, the United States can make a real difference 
now to help revitalize the garment industry in Nepal and promote 
economic growth and higher living standards.
  There is no doubt that Nepal has struggled to draft a new 
constitution and coalesce around a governing majority.
  While only Nepal can chart its political course, passing this measure 
would undoubtedly help regenerate Nepal's stagnant economy.
  Let us show our solidarity with the people of Nepal by passing this 
commonsense measure.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Nepal Trade Preferences Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Burr, Mr. King, 
        Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Booker):
  S. 108. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve 
access for students to Federal grants and loans to help pay for 
postsecondary, graduate, and professional educational opportunities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask consent that the Senator from 
Colorado, Mr. Bennet, and I, along with the Senator from Maine, Mr. 
King, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Booker, the Senator from 
Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Burr, be 
able to engage in a colloquy on higher education for the next half 
hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I further ask unanimous consent to use a piece of 
demonstrative evidence in my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from Colorado, Michael Bennet, and I have 
been working for 1 year to make it easier for the 20 million American 
families who fill out the Federal application form each year in order 
to receive grants and loans for college.
  The piece of demonstrative evidence that Senator Bennet and I have 
been carrying around in Tennessee and Colorado is the Free Application 
for Federal Student Aid or FAFSA. This is the form that 20 million 
Americans fill out. It is familiar to many families as it has 108 
questions, and it is important to them because about half of the 
American families who have students in college have a Federal grant or 
loan to help pay for college.
  The problem with the 108 questions is that they are generally 
unnecessary. Senator Bennet and I were at a Health, Education, Labor 
and Pensions Committee hearing. We heard four witnesses representing 
different perspectives in our country saying that we only need two 
questions to know whether we could make a Federal grant or loan to a 
student from Wisconsin who wanted to go to community college with 
roughly 95 percent accuracy.
  So today we are introducing legislation which is named the Federal 
Aid Simplification and Transparency, or

[[Page 134]]

FAST, Act. It will turn these 108 questions into two--one about the 
amount of family income and one about the size of family. It will free 
students and their families from the dreaded FAFSA. It will eliminate 
thousands of hours of busywork by guidance counselors, college 
administrators, parents, and accountants.
  I will use a specific example. On Friday I am going to Tennessee with 
President Obama, who has been attracted to our great State because we 
have become the first State to say to all of our high school graduates 
that community college is tuition-free. How can we do that in 
Tennessee? Tuition at community colleges, like in some places in the 
country, is about $3,600 per year, and the Pell grant can pay up to 
$5,700, but on average needy students receive about $3,300. So for 
about half the students, there is only a small gap between the amount 
the Federal Pell grant pays and what tuition costs. Tennessee has 
committed to make up the difference.
  But here is the catch: The major obstacle to Tennesseans who want to 
take advantage of the new Tennessee Promise Program is the 108-question 
form. The president of the community college in Memphis, Southwest 
Tennessee Community College, tells me he thinks he loses 1,500 students 
a semester because of the complexity of the form. They just don't fill 
it out.
  So it is a terrific example of how the Federal Government, with good 
intentions, has built up over the years an enormous amount of paperwork 
that is getting in the way of the single greatest need our State has, 
which is to have more of our students better trained. This will help 
the businesses that are attracted there offering good jobs will be able 
to hire people who are properly trained.
  In addition to that, our bill does the following things:
  It not only eliminates the 108 questions and replaces them with 2, it 
tells families the result earlier in the process. For example, if you 
have a daughter who is a junior in high school, now you will be able to 
go online and find out--answering two questions--how much money you are 
eligible for in grants and loans. Now you have to wait until the second 
semester of your senior year.
  The next thing it does is it streamlines the Federal grant and loan 
programs by combining two Federal programs into one Pell Grant Program 
and reduces the six different Federal loan programs into three--one 
undergraduate loan program, one graduate loan program, and one parent 
loan program--resulting in more access for students.
  Fourth, it enables students to use a Pell grant in a manner that 
works for them. They can use it year-round--now they cannot use it for 
three straight semesters--or at their own pace.
  Next, it discourages overborrowing. Too many students borrow extra 
money they do not need to go to college. For example, under the Federal 
rules a student is entitled to borrow the same amount of money if they 
go full time as they are if they go half time. That makes no sense. It 
saddles students with debt they cannot pay back.
  Finally, it simplifies the repayment options. Now there are nine 
different ways to make repayments. We suggest two.
  Senators King and Burr have their own bill, which they will be 
introducing today and talking about a little later, that streamlines 
repayment options.
  I have been delighted to work with Senator Bennet. I congratulate 
him. His background as the Denver school superintendent and as a father 
has made him a very effective advocate for this effort. We have 
listened to educators and parents in our own States. The bill has been 
out there now for more than half a year. We have attracted other 
sponsors, including Senator Booker and Senator Isakson. We hope other 
Senators will want to join us.
  Finally, I would say before going to Senator Bennet that as chairman 
of the Senate committee that handles education--the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee--we are ready to move on this. As soon as 
we can finish our work on fixing No Child Left Behind, which we have 
been working on for 6 years and have held 24 hearings. In addition, 
almost all of the members of the current committee were there last year 
when we reported a bill--as soon as we can finish that work, we will be 
ready to move to reauthorize the Higher Education Act to deregulate 
higher education starting with the FAST Act and the legislation 
Senators King and Burr have promoted.
  I thank the Senator from Colorado for his partnership on this. I 
salute him for his leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor today 
with, among others, Senator Alexander, who has worked so hard on the 
bill we are talking about today. Through the Chair, I want to wish him 
well in his new role as chair of the Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions Committee on which I serve. He is quite right to have said 
this bill came to us as a result of testimony in front of that 
committee by a variety of witnesses but all of whom agreed that the 
current system is completely unwieldy. I would also like to thank the 
other cosponsors--Senators Burr, Booker, Isakson, and King--for joining 
the efforts and for being here today as well.
  I first became aware of this problem when I was superintendent of the 
Denver public schools. We had a couple who very generously donated $50 
million for scholarships for kids who were graduating from the Denver 
public schools and who had applied to college. One of the things we 
learned in that process was how terrible the process was for filling 
out the financial aid forms for the Federal Government. That was a 
requirement we had for people to be able to be eligible for this 
scholarship. We literally had to put new rooms in our schools, in our 
high schools, and staff them with people in order to fill out these 
forms.
  Every year tens of thousands of students and parents in Colorado and 
millions more across the country fill out the FAFSA as part of the 
college application process. It is the gateway to financial aid. By 
some estimates, over 2 million people who are eligible for financial 
aid and Pell grants do not get it simply because of the complexity of 
the form.
  I ask unanimous consent to show some demonstrative evidence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Here is this year's form. It is a different color than 
the one we had last year. This is the form a student has to fill out--
108 questions. This is the instruction manual that goes with the form, 
which is something in the neighborhood of 66 pages long. It is very 
tiny print.
  To be honest, the ridiculousness of this form would be funny if it 
were not for the lost time, money, and energy our country spends on it. 
Here are some of the examples of the questions families have to put up 
with on this form. Several times there are questions about income. We 
have been told by the witnesses we had that we only need two questions. 
There are a number of questions about income, investments, and assets. 
Each requires notes and instructions which are contained in here.
  Question 36: What was your and your spouse's adjusted gross income 
for 2014?
  Question 37: Enter your and your spouse's income tax for 2014.
  Question 39: How much did you earn from working in 2014?
  Question 40: How much did your spouse earn from working in 2014?
  It is ridiculous.
  The questions become even more complicated.
  Question 42: As of today, what is the net worth of your and your 
spouse's investments, including real estate but don't including the 
home you live in?
  That is the kind of reaction we get all over the country when we talk 
about this at home.
  The instruction form here says, for question No. 43, the net worth of 
businesses and/or investments.

       Business or farm value includes the current market value of 
     land, buildings, machinery, equipment, inventory, et cetera. 
     Do not include your primary farm. Do not include the net 
     worth of a family-owned and

[[Page 135]]

     controlled small business with more than 100 full-time or 
     full-time equivalent employees.

  Just to make it really clear, in dark print, bolded print, it says: 
business/farm value minus business/farm debt equals net worth of 
business. This is as complicated as any tax form.
  At a time when the demands of the global economy require us to have 
more college access, not less, it is a shame that this bureaucratic 
piling up of questions is making it harder and harder for people to go 
to college.
  So I think this is going to be great for our students, to get it down 
to a postcard that has two questions. The estimate is that the time 
saved by moving away from this existing form is the equivalent of 
50,000 jobs that could be spent actually providing college guidance to 
young people who will now have the benefit of knowing, as Senator 
Alexander said so eloquently, what financial aid they will be eligible 
for in their junior year before they apply to college rather than 
waiting until their senior year, until they have already been admitted 
to college. That makes no sense to the people we represent, and there 
is a reason for it--it is because it makes no sense.
  My hope is that this is a bill we will be able to move this year. 
Again, I thank Senator Alexander for his tremendous leadership.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bennet.
  I would like to send to the desk the FAST Act that Senator Bennet and 
I are introducing, with the cosponsorship of Senator Booker, Senator 
Burr, Senator King, and Senator Isakson.
  In this colloquy, I would like now to recognize the Senator from New 
Jersey for 5 minutes to comment on the bill, if he would like.
  Mr. President, following that--the Senator from North Carolina and 
the Senator from Maine, who are cosponsors of this bill, are here, but 
they also have a separate bill on income repayments which they will 
discuss.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. I wish to thank Senators Bennet and Alexander for their 
work on this legislation. It is going to help our Nation's students 
make better, smarter, and more-informed decisions about higher 
education.
  Historically, the United States has been the leader globally in 
expanding college opportunity. We understand that an educated workforce 
is essential to our Nation's economic competitiveness. Without highly 
skilled workers, America will not be able to compete in the global 
economy.
  The average price of a college degree in the United States is 
climbing--about $13,856. Please put that in perspective with our 
competitor nations, nations that are keeping the cost of college low, 
knowing that their long-term competitiveness as a country depends on 
the education of their children, nations such as the United Kingdom, 
where a college education costs less than half of ours, and Germany, 
where kids pay a mere $933.
  The average American student now is graduating from college with 
around $29,000 in loans. In New Jersey, that is up from an average of 
$27,000 in 2011 and $23,000 and change in 2010. This is unacceptable. 
Mounting debt is undermining not only the success of our individual 
young people in our country, but it is undermining the long-term 
competitiveness our Nation has in a global knowledge-based economy. 
That is one reason why it is important that we work to make the process 
of obtaining financial aid simpler and more straightforward.
  We saw the ridiculousness which Senator Bennet held up in the length 
of the form and the explanation document. Well, this has to change. 
This is something I recognized when I was mayor of the city of Newark. 
We had classes. Literally we called it, I think, Financial Aid 
University, where we brought experts in just to try to help students 
navigate all of that. We spent so many resources knowing that for our 
kids from Newark to be competitive, we had to help them navigate this 
labyrinth of challenging questions and documents that it takes perhaps 
a college degree or even more to figure out.
  When I first came to the Senate about 13 months ago, one of the first 
pieces of legislation I offered, having had that experience, was a way 
of simplifying these forms. There is an urgency here because the 
College Board estimates that 2.3 million students do not fill out the 
FAFSA form, the free application for financial aid. Because the form is 
a gateway to financial aid, having 2.3 million being deterred from 
actually filling it out is a harm to our Nation, not just to those 
individual students. Many students who qualify for Federal aid skip the 
form because they find it--as we obviously saw--too complex.
  Because eligibility is currently based on income information for the 
year immediately preceding enrollment, financial aid deadlines mean 
that tax data is not yet available. As a result, students must 
determine how to fill out financial aid questions on the FAFSA form and 
take additional steps then to submit later the tax documents.
  We know more can be done to make this process simpler and accessible, 
which is why I am pleased. I was really rejoicing when Senator 
Alexander and Senator Bennet showed me there was a way we could work--
even further than the legislation I introduced in the last Congress--to 
reduce it to two questions--saving time, saving energy, saving stress 
but even more importantly empowering students to get their education 
and contribute to our economy so that we can compete with those other 
countries that seem to be doing a much better job than we are in 
keeping the cost of college low.
  This bill streamlines the financial aid system, simplifies the FAFSA 
form, discourages overborrowing--which is a problem--and, most 
importantly, gives students and families better information earlier in 
the process to enable them to make better decisions for them. This bill 
is a good step.
  This bill is a great step. I am looking forward to working with the 
higher education community as well as students and families in New 
Jersey on how we can be successful in simplifying this process, 
increasing access to college and boosting not only enrollment but the 
economic output of our citizenry.
  Again, I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Bennet for their work 
and leadership. I am pleased to be with them in this effort, and I look 
forward to continuing the conversation this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator from New Jersey is known in his State and 
across the country as a pioneer in education, putting children first.
  Having his support and advice on this bill will be a great advantage 
in helping it go from the Senate floor through the House to the 
President's desk and into law.
  In 2013 the Congress and President Obama made significant steps 
forward in improving the student loan program--a $100 billion per year 
Federal program to help students go to college. That law created a 
market-based, market-pricing system, and it had the effect in that year 
of reducing the rate for undergraduates, cutting it about in half.
  The two Senators who led that were the Senator from North Carolina, 
Mr. Burr, and the Senator from Maine, Mr. King. Senator Burr and 
Senator King have continued to work on student loans, making it easier 
for students to go to college, easier for them to pay their loans, and 
easier for them to pay them back.
  We are proud to have them as cosponsors, but they have their own 
legislation on student loan repayments, which I am pleased to cosponsor 
and which will be a top priority in the Senate HELP Committee as soon 
as we finish fixing No Child Left Behind.
  I now yield in this colloquy to Senator Burr.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Bennet, and I thank 
them for what they propose in the FAST Act.
  As a parent who went through two kids going to college, when I was 
presented that form, I realized I wasn't capable of doing it.

[[Page 136]]

  I remember a story still today of a dear colleague of mine in the 
House of Representatives--many know Sonny Bono. We asked Sonny one day: 
Why did you come to Congress? How did you get into politics?
  He said: Well, I became mayor of a city for one reason--because I 
opened a restaurant. When I went to get a sign permit, they gave me 50 
pages to fill out. I didn't graduate from high school, but I figured 
out it was easier for me to run for mayor, win, and make the sign 
permit 1 page than it was for me to fill out 50 pages.
  That is how he got his start in politics.
  I might say, as a parent, to be able to--on a post card--apply and 
know whether I was eligible for my children's student aid would be a 
tremendous thing for all parents.
  Senator King and I are on the floor to talk specifically about the 
Repay Act.
  As we have looked at student loans and as the government has become 
the primary loan component for student loans, what we have seen is that 
the consolidation of one's loans has dramatically increased in an 
incoherent way. Now, some might say that is exactly what government 
does. We say we are going to fix a problem, and we fix it in a way that 
you don't understand it; it is way too cumbersome.
  What we have tried to do is we have made an effort to provide more 
avenues for or options for children to choose or parents to choose how 
to pay back student loans. What we have done is we have made it as 
complicated as the form that Senator Bennet showed, which determines 
eligibility.
  Currently, the Federal Government offers 12 repayment options for 
students. Among these 12 options, students are offered a series of 
terms and conditions that often overlap amongst several other programs 
with very similar sounding names and stated benefits. The problem gets 
worse annually.
  The administration continues to do new regulations every time we see 
a problem, and those regulations then overlap with existing regulations 
on student loans to where individuals don't know exactly what their 
options are--what Senator King and I want to do.
  We will introduce, hopefully later today, the Repay Act. It provides 
two options that kids choose from: a fixed-rate option for repayment 
and an income-based option for repayment.
  We also realize that under the income-based options that are out 
there today an individual who is married could file as married--filing 
an individual tax form--and their household income isn't considered for 
the amount they are going to repay on a monthly basis. That is not how 
we designed it.
  We designed it so what their income capability was, their repayment 
would reflect it. In other words, we have people who are gaming the 
system today because their one spouse makes a lot of money and one 
spouse doesn't make much, and they pay a minimal amount of monthly 
student loan repayments. When they do that, they cheat the other 
students behind them because they take money out of the system that can 
be used for those individuals who desperately need it.
  The Repay Act streamlines a multitude of loan programs and creates a 
fixed-base and income-based repayment. It does it by consolidating all 
income-based repayment programs into one repayment program that caps 
borrowing at $57,500 for 20 years and limits to 25 years the repayment 
period for loans over $57,500, while ensuring the monthly payments rise 
at a reasonable rate based upon that annual income level--again, the 
household income level.
  The benefit for students is they will up front have the knowledge 
they need of what they will expect to pay based upon the amount they 
borrow.
  We believe this will drive smarter borrowing decisions and will lead 
students to limit the amount of debt they take prior to going to 
school. Behavioral economists argue that when an individual's options 
are less complex and straightforward, individuals are more likely to 
make rational decisions.
  Senator King and I believe the changes included in the Repay Act will 
promote those rational decisions that will ultimately lead to smarter 
borrowing that leads to repayment and ultimately healthier financial 
situations for our Nation's graduates.
  Why are we here? It is because only 80 percent of our student loans 
are being repaid. That means 20 percent is in default.
  What we want to do is we want to see kids get a great education. We 
want to see the ability for that to be paid for, and we want that money 
to be repaid based upon their success in the marketplace. I believe 
this act will put us on that road to do it.
  Now, I don't want to pretend, and I don't think Senator King will 
pretend, this isn't something that we crafted and created. This is the 
result of ideas that were put forward by the National Association of 
Student Financial Aid Administrators, the Lumina Foundation for 
Education, the Education Finance Council, the American Council on 
Education, the Young Invincibles, the Institute for College Access and 
Success, the New America Foundation, and many other groups.
  This is truly Congress, the Senate at its best, reaching out to 
organizations that do this day in and day out, just as I think the 
chairman did on the application-card student aid form.
  We have tried to search the best ideas. From that we have gleaned 
them and put them into the Repay Act. We will introduce this bill. I 
thank the chairman. It does complement very much the FAST Act.
  I thank my colleague, Senator King, for his help on the introduction 
of this bill.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from North Carolina. No one was 
more instrumental in the work in 2013 that reformed student loans to 
reduce the interest rate for undergraduates by nearly half that year.
  In his State of North Carolina there are many of the best 
universities and 2-year colleges in the country, and I know education 
has been and is foremost for him.
  I look forward to working with him, the members of our committee and 
every Senator on the floor, as we go through the process with a full 
and honest debate on important issues using an open amendment process. 
Then I hope we are able to work with President Obama again this year in 
the same way we were in 2013 to achieve a result.
  A forceful advocate for that result in 2013 was the Senator of Maine 
who has the advantage of having been a Governor, Senator King, and we 
will let him have the final say in this colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Economic development and jobs is what unites us in this 
body. That is what we all want. That is what everyone here is striving 
to achieve--jobs and opportunity for the people of this country.
  There are many factors that contribute to that, and we can discuss 
and debate all of them this year. I suspect that we will. There is 
infrastructure, tax policy, smart regulation, and regulatory reform. 
But the one about which there is very little dispute is education.
  The single greatest job creation and economic development act in the 
history of the United States was the GI bill, subsequent to World War 
II, which opened the doors of college and higher education, to millions 
of Americans and literally built the middle class in this country. 
Education is what it is all about and education is even more important 
now than it was then.
  There was a time in this country when you could graduate from high 
school and get a pretty good job in a mill, make good money, have two 
cars in the garage, and lead a successful life. That is much more 
difficult today. Even those jobs in those mills require more education.
  In my State of Maine we did a survey a few years ago that showed 70 
percent of the jobs had people touching a computer every day. That is 
what takes an education, and to get an education takes access.

[[Page 137]]

  I will share one rather chilling statistic in terms of the 
competitive nature of the 21st century. We are engaged in competition. 
We are engaged in competition with the entire world and they want our 
jobs.
  A little statistic is the top 8 percent of high school graduates in 
China are equal in number to all the high school graduates in the 
United States. Think about that for a minute--the top 8 percent in 
China are equal in number to all the high school graduates of the 
United States.
  We are going to have to work to compete, and the only way we are 
going to be able to do that is if we work smart, and the only way we 
are going to be able to work smart is with education and expanded 
opportunity and access to education. Higher education in the 21st 
century, I would submit, is more important than ever.
  There has been attention to this over the years by State governments, 
local governments, by parents, by students, and by the Federal 
Government, going back to the midst of the Civil War, when one of the 
great education bills of all time was passed, the land grant college 
system in 1864. Support for research at our great universities has been 
a Federal effort.
  Student loans have been a part of what we have tried to contribute to 
this system for many years. Then, of course, we have Pell grants, which 
have enabled millions of students to find opportunity in higher 
education. But, ironically, the very programs that are designed to 
increase access to higher education have, themselves, become 
inaccessible.
  Senator Alexander and Senator Bennet made a dramatic showing today 
with these ridiculous forms. When you read the forms the conclusion is: 
I guess my kid isn't going to go to college.
  We have created a system where you need an accountant, a lawyer at 
your shoulder in order to fill out a form for financial aid, and the 
people who need it the most are the least likely to have the resources 
to bring those experts to bear on the process. Programs designed to 
promote access have themselves become inaccessible.
  So that is what today is all about. That is what our discussion is 
all about. It is about accessibility and simplification. Senators 
Alexander and Bennet and Booker have brilliantly articulated the power 
of the idea behind the FAST Act: reduce the questions to just a few 
simple questions to get the necessary information. You don't need 80 
pages of instructions to answer two questions. It will open the doors 
to literally millions of students whom we need. This isn't nice to 
have; this is need to have. This is an economic security and a national 
security question. We need these people. The current form is 
discouraging the very people we want: those who may or may not take the 
plunge into higher education. The simple fact is you shouldn't need an 
accountant to figure out whether you can get financial aid to go to 
college.
  The complementary bill Senator Burr and I are introducing today, 
along with Senator Rubio and Senator Warner, is called the Repay Act. 
The bill Senator Alexander is speaking to is about accessibility and 
simplification on the front end. Our bill is accessibility and 
simplification on the back end, dealing with the issue of repayment. It 
basically reduces eight current options--and I have a chart that would 
make Rube Goldberg blush in terms of the complexity of the current 
options--to two. One is a 10-year fixed repayment plan, which certain 
students can select if it makes sense for them, and the other is a 
variable income-driven plan.
  As Senator Burr pointed out, the ideas for this bill came from across 
the spectrum--from students, financial aid offices, financial aid 
administrators, Republicans, Democrats, and President Obama in his most 
recent budget.
  By the way, one of the groups Senator Burr mentioned is the Young 
Invincibles. I would like to be a Young Invincible. I would like to see 
where I can join that group because sometimes I don't exactly feel that 
way. But this is an idea I think is invincible because it just makes so 
much common sense.
  Borrowers can switch between the fixed payment and the variable 
payment depending upon their circumstances, but they never pay more 
than 15 percent of their disposable income.
  I think another important provision is if a borrower is totally and 
permanently disabled and the loan is forgiven, they do not have to pay 
tax on the loan that is forgiven. Under current law, they have to pay 
an income tax on the phantom income of the loan that is forgiven.
  I particularly thank Senators Warner and Rubio for joining us on this 
bill. They had their own bill on this repayment structure last year, 
and they have generously decided to join forces with us on this bill, 
and I believe that will add substantial weight to our work. They have 
already made contributions to the drafting of the bill, and I think 
that will help us considerably as we move forward with this 
legislation.
  Quite often around here we talk about things we can't do--we can't 
do--problems we can't fix. This is something we can do. This is a human 
problem of our making by layering programs over one another and having 
the bureaucratic rules build over the years to the point where, as I 
said, it has created an accessibility problem for the very program 
designed to give access.
  These are important bills. They are not necessarily the bills that 
are going to get the headlines or cause all the fights and the 
friction, but these are the quiet kinds of changes that will change our 
country. They will provide opportunity for our students, for our 
families, and for our country. I am proud to join Senator Alexander, 
the chair of the HELP Committee, and Senator Burr particularly, who has 
worked so hard on this bill. I think we have a combination of bills 
that will make a difference in people's lives and in the future of this 
country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, as the colloquy is concluding, I want 
to thank the Senators from Maine and New Jersey for their leadership 
and the Senator from North Carolina. I can assure them the King-Burr 
bill, with the support of Senator Rubio and Senator Warner, will be 
combined with our bill and be front and center on the agenda of the 
HELP Committee as early as we can this year. As far as I am concerned, 
it is the next priority after we fix No Child Left Behind. I am hopeful 
we can bring it to the floor by the spring, give the full Senate a 
chance to consider it, combine it with action of the House and work 
with the President, just as we did in 2013.
  I am going to turn to Senator Bennet for just a minute to let him 
have a concluding word, but I wanted to say this. As I mentioned, 
President Obama is going to Tennessee on Friday. He is going to 
celebrate an initiative Tennessee has taken by itself to say to all 
high school graduates: Two years of community college education is 
tuition free. Of course, that is based upon the Pell grant. The State 
just makes up the difference, which isn't that much.
  I am going to have an opportunity to say to the President: Mr. 
President, the one thing the Federal Government can do to make it 
easier for more Tennesseans to take advantage of Tennessee Promise is 
to get rid of the FAFSA. Because the President of Southwest Tennessee 
Community College in Memphis says 1,500 students a semester are not 
enrolling in community college, who ought to be going, just because 
they and their families are intimidated by this form or can't fill it 
out.
  There is no excuse for that, and we are going to fix that. Maybe the 
solution is three questions, maybe it is four questions, but surely it 
is not 108 questions, and 70 or 80 pages of instructions, wasting the 
time of administrators, guidance counselors, parents, accountants, 
students, and discouraging Americans from taking advantage of 
education.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a one-page 
summary of the FAST Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 138]]



        Financial Aid Simplification and Transparency (FAST) Act

       A Bill introduced by Senators Alexander and Bennet to 
     simplify the federal financial aid programs and application 
     process.
       What the Bill Does:
       Eliminates the Free Application for Financial Student Aid, 
     or FAFSA, by reducing the 10-page form to a postcard that 
     would ask just two questions: What is your family size? And, 
     what was your household income two years ago?
       Tells families early in the process what the federal 
     government will provide them in a grant and loan by using 
     earlier tax data and creating a look-up table to allow 
     students in their junior year of high school to see how much 
     in federal aid they are eligible for as they start to look at 
     colleges.
       Streamlines the federal grant and loan programs by 
     combining two federal grant programs into one Pell grant 
     program and reducing the six different federal loan programs 
     into three: one undergraduate loan program, one graduate loan 
     program, and one parent loan program, resulting in more 
     access for more students.
       Enable students to use Pell grants in a manner that works 
     for them by restoring year-round Pell grant availability and 
     providing flexibility so students can study at their own 
     pace. Both provisions would enable them to complete college 
     sooner.
       Discourages over-borrowing by limiting the amount a student 
     is able to borrow based on enrollment. For example, a part-
     time student would be able to take out a part time loan only.
       Simplifies repayment options by streamlining complicated 
     repayment programs and creates two simple plans, an income 
     based plan and a 10-year repayment plan.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time, I thank my 
fellow Senators, and I yield for the final words of the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I again say thank you to the chairman of 
the HELP Committee for all his leadership and his work dealing with 
this form. We have been after this for about 1 year.
  This might be a quiet bill, as Senator King said earlier, but in my 
travels around the State I can't find anybody who is unhappy with this 
legislation except for the people who have already filled out the form, 
who are asking: Where were you 5 years ago when I was having to do this 
for my students or where were you when I was having to fill this out 
for my college education?
  It makes absolutely no sense. I am sure many of these questions are 
well intentioned, but what we have learned in the hearings we have had, 
in the testimony, is they are not necessary. If they are not necessary, 
we shouldn't be asking them. Our students would be a lot better off 
spending their time figuring out what college they want to attend, 
figuring out what course of study they want to undertake than spending 
their time with this bureaucratic nightmare.
  I am enormously optimistic that we are going to get this passed with 
the chairman's leadership, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on that. I would like to thank the Senator from New Jersey 
again for signing on as one of the original cosponsors.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________