[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14252-14256]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Barrasso):
  S. 2039. A bill to designate the mountain at the Devils Tower 
National Monument, Wyoming, as Devils Tower, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the introduction of 
legislation which designates the mountain and populated place at Devils 
Tower National Monument as Devils Tower.

[[Page 14253]]

This is legislation I am introducing today with the support of Senator 
John Barrasso of Wyoming and in conjunction with Representative Cynthia 
Lummis who is introducing this same measure in the House.
  Devils Tower National Monument is not an ordinary national treasure. 
There are approximately 117 national monuments, but Devils Tower has 
the distinction as being America's first national monument. Established 
by President Theodore Roosevelt on September 24, 1906, Devils Tower 
National Monument preserves the unique geologic, cultural, and 
aesthetic values of this breathtaking feature.
  Devils Tower has a rich cultural history, and has many meanings to 
different cultures, including the many peoples and Native American 
tribes that have historical and geographic ties to Northeastern 
Wyoming. The Geographic Names Information System, GNIS, prepared by the 
U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, acknowledges there are sixteen documented 
variant names to Devils Tower. Documents submitted to the U.S. Board on 
Geographic Names cite approximately 94 different published names for 
Devils Tower. Meanwhile, official Federal records indicate the name 
Devils Tower has existed for over 130 years.
  This is why I am glad there was an opportunity for public comment and 
debate on the most recent petition to rename Devils Tower. The results 
of that 5 month public comment period demonstrated there is strong 
support from the community and local officials to retain the Devils 
Tower name for the geologic feature, the populated place, and the 
National Monument.
  Now that there has been an opportunity to hear comments about the 
most recent petition to rename Devils Tower, the Wyoming congressional 
delegation is introducing this legislation to preserve the Devils Tower 
name for the feature, populated place, and for America's first national 
monument. We also encourage the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, U.S. 
Department of Interior, and the President to suspend any additional 
consideration on the petition to rename the features at Devils Tower 
National Monument.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      Crook County


                                       Board of Commissioners,

                                 Sundance, WY, September 11, 2015.

       In 1868, the Wyoming Territory was created. In 1885, Crook 
     County was created. In 1890, the Territory of Wyoming 
     obtained statehood. In 1906, the first national monument, 
     Devils Tower, was established. The United States was the 
     first country in the world to set aside its most significant 
     places as national park units so they could be enjoyed by 
     all.
       Over the centuries, many people have passed through or have 
     inhabited the region now known as Crook County. The many 
     Native American tribes who were in the area called the summit 
     different names over time. By establishing the summit and the 
     surrounding grounds as Devils Tower National Monument, the 
     decision was made as to its official name.
       The Crook County Commission would like to submit comments 
     from the public it began to solicit since March 2015. A 
     survey was developed and was inserted in the local 
     newspapers, put on Crook County's website and each 
     Commissioner hand delivered comment sheets throughout the 
     county to the area businesses and town halls. We received 
     comments from within the County and from around the world. As 
     of August 3, 2015, we have received 954 comments about the 
     summit: 34 approve the name change and 886 oppose the name 
     change. For changing the name of the settlement called Devils 
     Tower, we received 953 comments: 37 for the name change and 
     855 against it.
       Crook County citizens believe the Tower is special. There 
     is evidence that organized gatherings have taken place at the 
     Tower since the first recorded climb of the Tower July 4, 
     1893. Citizens urged State and Federal officials to recognize 
     the importance of this landmark and pressed for improved 
     roads to the Tower in the early 1900's. Since then, the Tower 
     has been the site of numerous weddings, reunions, picnics, 
     school outings and other important life events. Always, the 
     Tower has been referred to with reverence. It is always 
     called ``Devils Tower'' or ``the Tower''. We are not aware of 
     any pet name or slang references used by local citizens. One 
     definition of the word, ``sacred'', in Webster's Dictionary 
     means ``worthy of respect''. By that definition, Devils Tower 
     is sacred.
       If the name is changed to ``Bear Lodge'', it will diminish 
     the uniqueness of the site. This special place deserves more 
     than a generic name. There is already the Bear Lodge 
     Mountains east of the Monument. There is a rare earths mine 
     being built in the Bear Lodge Mountains called the Bear Lodge 
     Project. There is Bear Butte in Meade County, SD which is 
     reportedly a sacred site to some Native Americans. By having 
     so many places with ``Bear'' already in its name, it creates 
     confusion for the over 400,000 annual visitors who come 
     specifically to northeast Wyoming to see Devils Tower.
       Records show the name Devils Tower has existed officially 
     for over 130 years. In the Bureau of Land Management 
     Cadastral Survey Land Plats dated August 24, 1883, it is 
     indicated that the summit was named Devils Tower. This is 
     based upon field notes from 1881 and 1882. Those field notes 
     dated July 23, 1883 state ``A prominent land mark is a high 
     peak in Section 7 called Devils Tower''.
       Today is not the time to debate whether the site is sacred 
     to some tribes or not. Anecdotal evidence exists that some 
     tribes did avoid the area due to the ``bad gods''. Please see 
     some of the comments submitted. For example, the Campstool 
     Ranch was established by Lady Grace Esme MacKenzie in 1881. 
     ``The location of the ranch near the base of Devils Tower was 
     chosen not due to its scenery but because the Native 
     Americans were scared of it and would not go near it''. This 
     was in 1881. The Battle of the Little Bighorn was June 1876 
     and the Indian Wars continued until 1918.
       We do not believe that all elders, leaders and individual 
     tribal members find the name of the summit highly offensive, 
     insulting, etc., as stated in the petition. There is an 
     organization called Devils Tower Sacred to Many People whose 
     mailing address is Devils Tower, Wyoming which owns land near 
     the Tower. This federally recognized non-profit exists to 
     benefit the Native Americans who live on reservations. The 
     international monetary supports this organization receives 
     show many people recognize the name Devils Tower. The Native 
     artists who sell their wares to the organization recognize 
     the name also and support their efforts.
       We do not believe the summit was given its name purposely 
     due to white people finding cultural and faith traditions 
     practiced by Native Americans ``evil''. It was the name 
     commonly used by the people who lived in the area. That is 
     why one name was chosen for the summit and for the National 
     Monument. Many tribes have their own historic name for the 
     Tower. The United States Board on Geographic Names Case Brief 
     cites approximately 94 different published names for Devils 
     Tower. We do not believe that over twenty tribes who have 
     potential cultural affiliation with the Tower have reached a 
     consensus to support the proposal of one name for the summit. 
     We believe each tribe will continue to use their traditional 
     name for the Tower and Wyoming natives will do the same. 
     Devils Tower has always been open to anyone to use as a 
     respectful place to carry on their own traditions and we 
     expect it to remain that way. The Tower can be shared by all.
       The Crook County Commission questions what significant or 
     historic benefit will be advanced by changing the name of the 
     summit located at Devils Tower National Monument? Will the 
     name change proposed by the petitioners benefit many, just a 
     few, or will it cause more dissention? Therefore: We request 
     the Wyoming Board on Geographic Names and the United States 
     Board on Geographic Names retain the name of the summit as 
     Devils Tower.
       We question why the settlement of Devils Tower is being 
     petitioned for change. There is a United States Post Office 
     there and we have not received a recommendation from the USPS 
     for a name change. Records show that particular Post Office 
     has been in existence since 1925. Reading some of the 
     comments we received from our Wyoming natives, we ask ``How 
     can people who do not even live in the area propose a name 
     change to a populated place?'' Numerous comments from the 
     people who have Devils Tower as their mailing address mention 
     the unnecessary distress of changing the name of their 
     business and changing their address on passports, official 
     documents and just receiving mail and packages.
       Crook County received 855 comments to retain the name of 
     the settlement of Devils Tower. Again we ask: what 
     significant or historic benefit will be advanced by changing 
     the name of the settlement? A name change should be proposed 
     by the citizens it would most affect. Therefore, we request 
     the name of the settlement be retained as Devils Tower, 
     Wyoming.
           Sincerely,
     Kelly B. Dennis,
       Chairman.
     Jeanne A. Whalen,
       Vice-Chairwoman.
     Steve J. Stahla,
       Member.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Graham, Mr. Whitehouse, 
        Mr. Lee, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Flake, Mr.

[[Page 14254]]

        Franken, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Coons, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
        Perdue, and Mr. Markey):
  S. 2040. A bill to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CORNYN. 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. 2040

       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 ``Justice Against Sponsors of 
     Terrorism Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) International terrorism is a serious and deadly problem 
     that threatens the vital interests of the United States.
       (2) The Constitution confers upon Congress the power to 
     punish crimes against the law of nations and therefore 
     Congress may by law impose penalties on those who provide 
     material support to foreign organizations engaged in 
     terrorist activity, and allow for victims of international 
     terrorism to recover damages from those who have harmed them.
       (3) International terrorism affects the interstate and 
     foreign commerce of the United States by harming 
     international trade and market stability, and limiting 
     international travel by United States citizens as well as 
     foreign visitors to the United States.
       (4) Some foreign terrorist organizations, acting through 
     affiliated groups or individuals, raise significant funds 
     outside of the United States for conduct directed and 
     targeted at the United States.
       (5) It is necessary to recognize the substantive causes of 
     action for aiding and abetting and conspiracy liability under 
     the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (22 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.).
       (6) The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia in Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 
     (D.C. Cir. 1983), which has been widely recognized as the 
     leading case regarding Federal civil aiding and abetting and 
     conspiracy liability, including by the Supreme Court of the 
     United States, provides the proper legal framework for how 
     such liability should function in the context of the Anti-
     Terrorism Act of 1987 (22 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.).
       (7) The United Nations Security Council declared in 
     Resolution 1373, adopted on September 28, 2001, that all 
     countries have an affirmative obligation to ``[r]efrain from 
     providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities 
     or persons involved in terrorist acts,'' and to ``[e]nsure 
     that any person who participates in the financing, planning, 
     preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in 
     supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice''.
       (8) Consistent with these declarations, no country has the 
     discretion to engage knowingly in the financing or 
     sponsorship of terrorism, whether directly or indirectly.
       (9) Persons, entities, or countries that knowingly or 
     recklessly contribute material support or resources, directly 
     or indirectly, to persons or organizations that pose a 
     significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that 
     threaten the security of nationals of the United States or 
     the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the 
     United States, necessarily direct their conduct at the United 
     States, and should reasonably anticipate being brought to 
     court in the United States to answer for such activities.
       (10) The United States has a vital interest in providing 
     persons and entities injured as a result of terrorist attacks 
     committed within the United States with full access to the 
     court system in order to pursue civil claims against persons, 
     entities, or countries that have knowingly or recklessly 
     provided material support or resources, directly or 
     indirectly, to the persons or organizations responsible for 
     their injuries.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide civil 
     litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with 
     the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief against 
     persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and 
     wherever they may be found, that have provided material 
     support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or 
     persons that engage in terrorist activities against the 
     United States.

     SEC. 3. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

       Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
       ``(5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2), in which 
     money damages are sought against a foreign state arising out 
     of physical injury or death, or damage to or loss of 
     property, occurring in the United States and caused by the 
     tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any 
     official or employee of that foreign state while acting 
     within the scope of the office or employment of the official 
     or employee (regardless of where the underlying tortious act 
     or omission occurs), including any statutory or common law 
     tort claim arising out of an act of extrajudicial killing, 
     aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, terrorism, or the 
     provision of material support or resources for such an act, 
     or any claim for contribution or indemnity relating to a 
     claim arising out of such an act, except this paragraph shall 
     not apply to--
       ``(A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance of, 
     or the failure to exercise or perform, a discretionary 
     function, regardless of whether the discretion is abused; or
       ``(B) any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse 
     of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, 
     interference with contract rights, or any claim for emotional 
     distress or derivative injury suffered as a result of an 
     event or injury to another person that occurs outside of the 
     United States; or''; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of subsection (a)(5)--
       ``(1) the terms `aircraft sabotage', `extrajudicial 
     killing', `hostage taking', and `material support or 
     resources' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     1605A(h); and
       ``(2) the term `terrorism' means international terrorism 
     and domestic terrorism, as those terms are defined in section 
     2331 of title 18.''.

     SEC. 4. AIDING AND ABETTING LIABILITY FOR CIVIL ACTIONS 
                   REGARDING TERRORIST ACTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2333 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Liability.--In an action under subsection (a) for an 
     injury arising from an act of international terrorism 
     committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had 
     been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under 
     section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1189), as of the date on which such act of international 
     terrorism was committed, planned, or authorized, or that was 
     so designated as a result of such act of international 
     terrorism, liability may be asserted as to any person who 
     aided, abetted, or conspired with the person who committed 
     such an act of international terrorism.''.
       (b) Effect on Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.--Nothing in 
     the amendments made by this section affects immunity of a 
     foreign state, as that term is defined in section 1603 of 
     title 28, United States Code, from jurisdiction under other 
     law.

     SEC. 5. PERSONAL JURISDICTION FOR CIVIL ACTIONS REGARDING 
                   TERRORIST ACTS.

       Section 2334 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following:
       ``(e) Personal Jurisdiction.--The district courts shall 
     have personal jurisdiction, to the maximum extent permissible 
     under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, over any person who commits or aids and abets an act 
     of international terrorism or otherwise sponsors such act or 
     the person who committed such act, for acts of international 
     terrorism in which any national of the United States suffers 
     injury in his or her person, property, or business by reason 
     of such an act in violation of section 2333.''.

     SEC. 6. LIABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN CIVIL ACTIONS 
                   REGARDING TERRORIST ACTS.

       Section 2337 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2337. Suits against Government officials

       ``No action may be maintained under section 2333 against--
       ``(1) the United States;
       ``(2) an agency of the United States; or
       ``(3) an officer or employee of the United States or any 
     agency of the United States acting within the official 
     capacity of the officer or employee or under color of legal 
     authority.''.

     SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of a provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder 
     of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and the 
     application of the provisions and amendments to any other 
     person not similarly situated or to other circumstances, 
     shall not be affected by the holding.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil 
     action--
       (1) pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) arising out of an injury to a person, property, or 
     business on or after September 11, 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 2043. A bill to revise counseling requirements for certain 
borrowers of student loans and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, student debt is a big and growing 
concern for millions of American graduates.

[[Page 14255]]

  As we look at ways of addressing this problem, it is important to 
keep in mind that about 90 percent of that debt is owed to the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government currently holds more than $1 
trillion of student loan debt. That makes the U.S. Department of 
Education one of the country's largest lenders.
  As such, any solution to the debt problem needs to examine the 
Federal Government's lending practices. Federal banking regulations 
require commercial lenders to confirm a borrower's ability to repay the 
loan. Federal student loans are given without a credit check or any 
analysis of the student's ability to repay the loan in the future. This 
is intentional, since many prospective college students have no credit 
and little or no income, but it also puts all the burden on student 
borrowers to make sure they don't borrow more than they need.
  As a Nation, we have accepted that it makes moral and financial sense 
to assist low-income Americans in accessing higher education 
opportunities, and we do that to the tune of billions of dollars 
through Pell grants, subsidized student loans, and other student aid 
programs. However, while need-based Federal student aid is vital to 
help students who could not otherwise afford to attend college, 
students are able to borrow well in excess of their financial need and 
potentially in excess of what they will be able to repay. So something 
needs to be done about this.
  College financial aid officers are required under law to issue 
Federal loans up to the full amount for which the student is eligible 
even if a financial aid administrator knows a student is borrowing more 
than the student needs and will likely have trouble repaying. Think 
about that. Even if the financial aid administrator knows the student 
plans to put the funds toward an engagement ring or sports car, Federal 
rules say they must issue the loan. If a bank followed the same rules 
as the Federal Government follows for student aid, it would be accused 
of predatory lending.
  There have been lots of suggestions about how to address the student 
debt issue, but if you don't tackle the root of the problem, it is like 
closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. A good place to 
start is looking at how our current Federal student lending practices 
may be helping to fuel the student debt problem. For example, about 60 
percent of the students at the University of Iowa graduate with debt, 
and their average debt is about $25,000. However, the university 
estimates that of that $25,000 figure, about $13,000--or 60 percent of 
the debt--is debt that was incurred to pay for tuition, room and board, 
and books, and the remainder is for what can be called lifestyle 
expenses. In other words, about 40 percent of the average student debt 
taken out by the University of Iowa student goes toward lifestyle-
enhancing extras.
  The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will be 
looking at a number of reforms to the student loan program as it drafts 
legislation to reauthorize and reform the Higher Education Act. I know 
that our esteemed Chairman Alexander has in the past proposed giving 
higher education institutions additional tools to reduce unnecessary 
student borrowing. I have worked with Senator Franken of Minnesota on 
some measures to provide more information about college costs when 
students are selecting a college in the very first place, which will 
hopefully encourage more price competition to combat rising tuition.
  There is room for a lot of innovation in higher education. I don't 
pretend to have all the answers and solutions to the problem of college 
cost and student debt, but I am proposing some very simple, very 
commonsense first steps to empower students with the information they 
need to make sound financial decisions.
  The Higher Education Act already contains a requirement for colleges 
to provide counseling to new borrowers of Federal student loans. 
However, the current disclosures in the law do not do enough to 
encourage students to understand the scope and impact of the debt they 
will face when they graduate.
  I am here on the floor to introduce legislation I have entitled the 
Know Before You Owe Federal Student Loan Act. This bill strengthens the 
current student loan counseling requirement by making the counseling an 
annual requirement before new loans are disbursed rather than just for 
first-time borrowers. My bill then adds several key components to the 
information institutions of higher education are required to share with 
students as part of that loan counseling. Under my bill, colleges would 
have to provide an estimate of the student's projected loan debt-to-
income ratio at the time of their graduation. This would be based on 
the starting wages for that student's program of study and the 
estimated total student loan debt the student will likely take out to 
complete the program. That way, students will have a real picture of 
the student loan payment they will face and whether they will be able 
to afford those payments with their likely future income from whatever 
program they majored in.
  We often hear that statistics show that on average a college degree 
results in higher earnings over a lifetime. However, not all college 
degrees have the same earning potential, and many students will be in 
for a very rude awakening when they graduate and find that what they 
are able to earn with their degree does not match the level of their 
debt. Students deserve to have this information when they are deciding 
how much to borrow, not after they graduate with unmanageable debt.
  This legislation I am proposing will also ensure that students are 
counseled to borrow only the minimum amount necessary to cover expenses 
and informed that they do not have to accept the full amount of the 
loan offered. Students will also be given options for reducing 
borrowing through scholarships, reduced expenses, work study, or other 
work opportunities. Also, not graduating on time can significantly 
increase student loan debt, so students will be counseled on the impact 
of adding an additional year of study to the total indebtedness and how 
they can stay on track to graduate on time.
  Crucially, the bill also requires that a student manually enter 
either in writing or through electronic means the exact dollar amount 
of the Federal direct loan funding the student desires to borrow. The 
current process almost makes borrowing the maximum the default option. 
If you want to borrow less than is offered, you have to ask for less.
  Because the amount of Federal student loans a student is eligible to 
borrow is not limited by the calculation of the financial need or 
ability to repay, it is important that the student make a conscious, 
informed decision about how much to borrow rather than simply accepting 
the total amount of the Federal student loan which the law allows them 
to borrow.
  Many schools already make a concerted effort to counsel students 
against over-borrowing, and such efforts are showing signs of success 
right in my home State of Iowa.
  My alma mater, the University of Northern Iowa, created a program 5 
years ago with the theme ``Live Like a Student.'' The program includes 
workshops and courses designed to educate students on the importance of 
living within their means while they are in school so they need not 
live like a student later in life. As a result, the university has 
lowered average student debt from more than $26,000 to $23,163.
  Grand View University, also in my State, has a financial empowerment 
plan where students and families construct a comprehensive 4-year 
financing plan. Under this plan, borrowing is based on the student's 
future earning potential in the student's field of study. The 4-year 
plan also helps ensure students graduate on time, and tuition increases 
are kept at 2 percent a year over those 4 years.
  Iowa Student Loan, my State-based nonprofit lender, also has a 
program called the Student Loan Game Plan, which is an online 
interactive resource that calculates a student's likely debt-to-income 
ratio. It walks students through how their borrowing will affect their 
lifestyle in the future and what actions they can take now to reduce 
their borrowing. As a result, in

[[Page 14256]]

the past year 18.2 percent of the students who participated decreased 
the amount they planned to borrow by an average of $3,680, saving 
students $2.1 million in additional loan debt.
  My legislation would also require that students receive regular 
statements about their loan while they are in school, just as they will 
when they graduate and start repaying. With just about any other kind 
of loan you can think of, borrowers start receiving statements right 
away and are expected to make payments. With Federal student loans, 
payments are not required until a period of time after graduation and 
no statements are sent out until that time, so students forget about 
the amount of debt they are accruing until they graduate and get their 
first bill.
  What is more, many Federal student loans still accrue interest while 
the student is in school, which will be added to the total loan when 
they start repaying. That means that not only do students forget how 
much debt they have while in school, making them less conscientious 
about living like a student, but their loan may actually be growing 
while they are in school. Students have the option to pay that interest 
while they are in school so that it isn't capitalized into their loan. 
However, few students take advantage of this option. The regular 
statement my bill calls for would encourage this practice so students 
get used to paying some amount toward their loans even before they 
graduate. This will also make students more aware of their borrowing 
and less likely to overborrow each time they take out a new loan.
  A college education generally remains a good investment. However, 
when students' academic dreams become a nightmare upon graduation 
because they borrowed more from the Federal Government than they can 
afford to repay with the degree they earned, they understandably feel 
something is very wrong. The Federal Government, as the lender making 
these loans, has a responsibility to at least ensure that students know 
what they are getting themselves into before they get in over their 
heads. My legislation is intended to deal with that issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill to prevent more students 
from drowning in Federal student loan debt, and I will introduce that 
bill at this particular time.

                          ____________________