59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–678 

SIMPLIFYING THE APPLICATION FOR STUDENT AID ACT 

JULY 11, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. KLINE, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5528] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 5528) to amend the Higher Education Act of 

1965 to simplify the FAFSA, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act’’. 

SEC. 2. USING DATA FROM SECOND PRECEDING YEAR. 

Section 480(a)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1087vv(a)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘may’’ in both places it appears and inserting ‘‘shall’’. 

SEC. 3. CALCULATION OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT PERCENTAGE FOR FEDERAL PELL GRANTS. 

Section 401(b)(7)(C)(iv)(I) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1070a(b)(7)(C)(iv)(I)) is amended by striking ‘‘calendar year’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal 

year’’. 

SEC. 4. FAFSA SIMPLIFICATION. 

(a) FAFSA SIMPLIFICATION.—Section 483 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1090) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(3), by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(I) FORMAT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 

of the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act, the Secretary shall 

make the electronic version of the forms under this paragraph available 

through a technology tool that can be used on mobile devices. Such technology tool shall, at minimum, enable applicants to— 

‘‘(i) save data; and 

‘‘(ii) submit their FAFSA to the Secretary through such tool. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

‘‘(J) CONSUMER TESTING.—In developing and maintaining the electronic 

version of the forms under this paragraph and the technology tool for mobile devices under subparagraph (I), the Secretary shall conduct consumer 

testing with appropriate persons to ensure the forms and technology tool 

are designed to be easily usable and understandable by students and families. Such consumer testing shall include— 

‘‘(i) current and prospective college students, family members of such 

students, and other individuals with expertise in student financial assistance application processes; 

‘‘(ii) dependent students and independent students meeting the requirements under subsection (b) or (c) of section 479; and 

‘‘(iii) dependent students and independent students who do not meet 

the requirements under subsection (b) or (c) of section 479.’’; and 

(2) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows: 

‘‘(f) USE OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DATA RETRIEVAL TOOL TO POPULATE

FAFSA.— 

‘‘(1) SIMPLIFICATION EFFORTS.—The Secretary shall— 

‘‘(A) make every effort to use data available from the Internal Revenue 

Service to reduce the amount of original data entry by applicants and 

strengthen the reliability of data used to calculate expected family contributions, including through the use of technology to— 

‘‘(i) automatically populate the electronic version of the forms under 

this paragraph with data available from the Internal Revenue Service; 

and 

‘‘(ii) direct an applicant to appropriate questions on such forms based 

on the applicant’s answers to previous questions; and 

‘‘(B) allow single taxpayers, married taxpayers filing jointly, and married 

taxpayers filing separately to utilize the data retrieval tool to its full capacity. 

‘‘(2) USE OF TAX RETURN IN APPLICATION PROCESS.—The Secretary shall continue to examine whether data provided by the Internal Revenue Service can 

be used to generate an expected family contribution without additional action 

on the part of the student and taxpayer. 

‘‘(3) REPORTS ON FAFSA SIMPLIFICATION EFFORTS.—Not less than once every 

other year, the Secretary shall report to the authorizing committees on the 

progress of the simplification efforts under this subsection. 

‘‘(4) REPORTS ON FAFSA ACCESS.—Not less than once every 10 years, the Secretary shall report to the authorizing committees on the needs of limited 

English proficient students using the FAFSA.’’. 

(b) FUNDING.— 

(1) USE OF EXISTING FUNDS.—Of the amount authorized to be appropriated to 

the Department of Education to maintain the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, $3,000,000 shall be available to carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act. 

(2) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED.—No funds are authorized by this Act 

to be appropriated to carry out this Act or the amendments made by this Act. 

PURPOSE

H.R. 5528, the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act, 

streamlines and improves the student aid process by providing for 

earlier award notification and making the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) simpler and more accessible. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

As the Committee on Education and the Workforce (Committee) 

continues the Higher Education Act reauthorization process, increasing transparency and usefulness of higher education data; 

simplifying and improving the federal student aid programs; and 

promoting innovation, access, and completion remain top priorities. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

112TH CONGRESS

Hearings—First session 

On March 1, 2011, the Committee held a hearing in Washington, 

D.C., on ‘‘Education Regulations: Weighing the Burden on Schools 

and Students.’’ The hearing was the first in a series examining the 

burden of federal, state, and local regulations on the nation’s education system. The purpose of the hearing was to uncover the damaging effects of federal regulations on schools and institutions. 

These rules increasingly stifle growth and innovation, raise operating costs, and limit student access to affordable colleges and universities throughout the nation. Testifying before the Committee 

were Dr. Edgar Hatrick, Superintendent, Loudon County Public 

Schools, Ashburn, Virginia; Ms. Kati Haycock, President, The Education Trust, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C.; and 

Mr. Christopher B. Nelson, President, St. John’s College, Annapolis, Maryland. 

On March 11, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Education Regulations: 

Federal Overreach into Academic Affairs.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the most egregious and intrusive pieces of the 

program integrity regulations issued by the U.S. Department of 

Education, specifically, the state authorization regulation and the 

credit hour regulation, and to uncover the unintended consequences 

of the regulations to states and institutions of higher education. 

Testifying before the Subcommittee were Mr. John Ebersole, President, Excelsior College, Albany, New York; Dr. G. Blair Dowden, 

President, Huntington University, Huntington, Indiana; The Honorable Kathleen Tighe, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Ralph Wolff, President, Western 

Association of Schools and Colleges, Alameda, California. 

On March 17, 2011, the Committee on held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Education Regulations: Roadblocks to Student 

Choice in Higher Education.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to explore the harmful consequences of the gainful employment regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Education. Testifying before 

the Committee were Ms. Catherine Barreto, Graduate, Monroe College, and Senior Sales Associate, Doubletree Hotels, Brooklyn, New 

York; Mr. Travis Jennings, Electrical Supervisor of the Manufacturing Launch Systems Group, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Chandler, Arizona; Dr. Arnold Mitchem, President, Council for Opportunity in Education, Washington, D.C.; and Ms. Jeanne Herrmann, 

Chief Operating Officer, Globe University/Minnesota School of 

Business, Woodbury, Minnesota. 

On March 21, 2011, the Committee held a hearing in WilkesBarre, Pennsylvania, on ‘‘Reviving our Economy: The Role of Higher Education in Job Growth and Development.’’ The purpose of the 

hearing was to highlight work by local colleges and universities to 

respond to local and state economic needs. Testifying before the 

Committee were Mr. James Perry, President, Hazelton City Council, Hazelton, Pennsylvania; Mr. Jeffrey Alesson, Vice President of 

Strategic Planning and Quality Assurance, Diamond Manufacturing, Exeter, Pennsylvania; Dr. Reynold Verret, Provost, Wilkes 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

University, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Mr. Raymond Angeli, 

President, Lackawanna College, Scranton, Pennsylvania; Ms. Joan 

Seaman, Executive Director, Empire Beauty School, Moosic, Pennsylvania; and Mr. Thomas P. Leary, President, Luzerne County 

Community College, Nanticoke, Pennsylvania. 

On March 22, 2011, the Committee held a hearing in Utica, New 

York, on ‘‘Reviving our Economy: The Role of Higher Education in 

Job Growth and Development.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to 

highlight work by local colleges and universities to respond to local 

and state economic needs. Testifying before the Committee were 

Mr. Anthony J. Picente, Jr., County Executive, Oneida County, 

Utica, New York; Mr. Dave Mathis, Director, Oneida County Workforce Development, Utica, New York; Dr. John Bay, Vice President 

and Chief Scientist, Assured Information Security, Inc., Rome, New 

York; Dr. Bjong Wolf Yeigh, President, State University of New 

York Institute of Technology, Utica, New York; Dr. Ann Marie 

Murray, President, Herkimer County Community College, Herkimer, New York; Dr. Judith Kirkpatrick, Provost, Utica College, 

Utica, New York; and Mr. Phil Williams, President, Utica School 

of Commerce, The Business College, Utica, New York. 

On April 21, 2011, the Committee held a hearing in Columbia, 

Tennessee, on ‘‘Reviving our Economy: The Role of Higher Education in Job Growth and Development.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to highlight the work by local colleges and universities to 

respond to local and state economic needs. Testifying before the 

Committee were Dr. Janet Smith, President, Columbia State Community College, Columbia, Tennessee; Dr. Ted Brown, President, 

Martin-Methodist College, Pulaski, Tennessee; Mr. Jim Coakley, 

President, Nashville Auto-Diesel College, Nashville, Tennessee; 

The Honorable Dean Dickey, Mayor, City of Columbia, Columbia, 

Tennessee; Ms. Susan Marlow, President and Chief Executive Officer, Smart Data Strategies, Franklin, Tennessee; Ms. Jan McKeel, 

Executive Director, South Central Tennessee Workforce Board, Columbia, Tennessee; and Ms. Margaret Prater, Executive Director, 

Northwest Tennessee Workforce Board, Dyersburg, Tennessee. 

On July 8, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, together with the House Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, 

and Government Spending, held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on 

‘‘The Gainful Employment Regulation: Limiting Job Growth and 

Student Choice.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to explore the 

harmful consequences of the gainful employment regulation issued 

by the U.S. Department of Education. Testifying before the subcommittees were Dr. Dario A. Cortes, President, Berkeley College, 

New York City, New York; Dr. Anthony P. Carnevale, Director, 

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C.; Ms. Karla Carpenter, Graduate, Herzing University and Program Manager, Quest Software, Madison, Wisconsin; and Mr. Harry C. Alford, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

On August 16, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Greenville, South Carolina, on ‘‘Reviving Our 

Economy: The Role of Higher Education in Job Growth and DevelVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:13 Jul 16, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR678.XXX HR678

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

opment.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to highlight the work by 

local colleges and universities to respond to local and state economic needs. Testifying before the Subcommittee were The Honorable Knox White, Mayor, City of Greenville, Greenville, South 

Carolina; Mr. Werner Eikenbusch, Section Manager, Associate Development and Training, BMW Manufacturing Co., Spartanburg, 

South Carolina; Ms. Laura Harmon, Project Director, Greenville 

Works, Greenville, South Carolina; Dr. Brenda Thames, Vice President of Academic Development, Greenville Health System, Greenville, South Carolina; Mr. James F. Barker, President, Clemson 

University, Clemson, South Carolina; Dr. Thomas F. Moore, Chancellor, University of South Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, South 

Carolina; Dr. Keith Miller, President, Greenville Technical College, 

Greenville, South Carolina; and Ms. Amy Hickman, Campus President, ECPI College of Technology, Greenville, South Carolina. 

On October 25, 2011, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Government-Run Student 

Loans: Ensuring the Direct Loan Program is Accountable to Students and Taxpayers.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine 

the switch to and implementation of the Direct Loan program. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Mr. James W. Runcie, Chief 

Operating Officer, Office of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department 

of Education, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Ron H. Day, Director of Financial Aid, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia; Ms. 

Nancy Hoover, Director of Financial Aid, Denison University, 

Granville, Ohio; and Mr. Mark. A. Bandre ́, Vice President for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs, Baker University, Baldwin City, Kansas. 

On November 30, 2011, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Keeping College 

Within Reach: Discussing Ways Institutions Can Streamline Costs 

and Reduce Tuition.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to highlight 

innovative practices institutions of higher education are implementing to reduce their costs to limit tuition increases for students. 

Testifying before the Subcommittee were Ms. Jane V. Wellman, Executive Director, Delta Project on Postsecondary Costs, Productivity, and Accountability, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Ronald E. 

Manahan, President, Grace College and Seminary, Winona Lake, 

Indiana; Mr. Jamie P. Merisotis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Lumina Foundation for Education, Indianapolis, Indiana; and 

Mr. Tim Foster, President, Colorado Mesa University, Grand Junction, Colorado. 

Legislative action—First Session 

On February 17, 2011, the House of Representatives considered 

an amendment offered by Committee Chairman John Kline (R– 

MN), Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee 

Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R–NC), and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D– 

FL) to H.R. 1, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013. The 

amendment prohibited the use of funds by the U.S. Department of 

Education to implement and enforce the gainful employment regulation. The amendment was agreed to by a bipartisan vote of 289 

to 136. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

On February 19, 2011, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 

1 by a vote of 235 to 189. This bill was not signed into law. 

On June 3, 2011, Chairman John Kline (R–MN) and Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R–NC) introduced H.R. 

2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. The bill repealed the state authorization regulation, one piece of 

the credit hour regulation, and prohibited the Secretary of Education (Secretary) from defining credit hour for any purpose under 

the Higher Education Act of 1965. On June 15, 2011, the Committee considered H.R. 2117 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House 

of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 27 to 11. 

The Committee considered and adopted the following amendment 

to H.R. 2117: • Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R–NC) offered an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute to add a short title to the 

legislation. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

The Committee further considered the following amendments to 

H.R. 2117, which were not adopted: • Rep. Rau ́l Grijalva (D–AZ) offered an amendment to maintain pieces of the state authorization regulation, including the complaint process. The amendment failed by a vote of 17 to 22. • Ranking Member George Miller (D–CA) offered an amendment to prohibit implementation until the U.S. Department of Education Inspector General certifies there are equal or greater protections in place related to program integrity under Title IV of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965. The amendment failed by a vote of 

17 to 22. • Rep. Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered an amendment to stipulate 

the act would be effective only if the maximum Pell Grant award 

is at least $5,550 for the 2012–2013 school year. The amendment 

was ruled out of order. • Rep. Tim Bishop (D–NY) offered an amendment to strike the 

repeal of the credit hour regulation that establishes a federal definition of a credit hour. The amendment failed by a vote of 11 to 

27. 

• Rep. Tim Bishop (D–NY) offered an amendment to strike the 

prohibition on the Secretary of Education from defining credit hour 

in the future. The amendment failed by a vote of 16 to 22. 

Hearings—Second session 

On July 18, 2012, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Keeping College Within 

Reach: Exploring State Efforts to Curb Costs.’’ The purpose of the 

hearing was to highlight innovative practices at the state level to 

assist postsecondary institutions in keeping costs affordable and to 

promote accountability of public funds. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Mr. Scott Pattison, Executive Director, National 

Association of State Budget Officers, Washington, D.C.; Ms. Teresa 

Lubbers, Commissioner for Higher Education, State of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana; Mr. Stan Jones, President, Complete College 

America, Zionsville, Indiana; and Dr. Joe May, President, Louisiana Community and Technical College System, Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

On September 20, 2012, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Assessing College 

Data: Helping to Provide Valuable Information to Students, Institutions, and Taxpayers.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine data collected by the federal government from institutions of 

higher education, including data requirements established during 

the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. Mark Schneider, Vice President, 

American Institutes for Research, Washington, D.C.; Dr. James 

Hallmark, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Texas A&M System, College Station, Texas; Dr. Jose ́ Cruz, Vice President for 

Higher Education Policy and Practice, The Education Trust, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Tracy Fitzsimmons, President, Shenandoah 

University, Winchester, Virginia. 

Legislative action—Second session 

On February 28, 2012, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 

2117 by a bipartisan vote of 303 to 114. The bill was sent to the 

Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On April 25, 2012, Rep. Judy Biggert (R–IL) introduced H.R. 

4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. The bill reduced the interest 

rate on subsidized Stafford loans made to undergraduate students 

from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent for one year, from July 1, 2012, 

through June 30, 2013. To offset the increase in mandatory spending, the bill repealed the Prevention and Public Health Fund authorized under Section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and rescinded the balance of unobligated monies 

made available for the fund. 

On April 27, 2012, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 

4628 by a vote of 215 to 195. 

While H.R. 4628 was never considered by the Senate, its provisions were included in the Conference Report for H.R. 4348, the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21), sponsored by Rep. John Mica (R–FL). To partially offset the increase in 

mandatory spending that resulted from the temporary reduction in 

interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans, the bill permanently restricted the period of eligibility to borrow subsidized Stafford loans 

to 150 percent of the published length of a student’s educational 

program. 

On June 29, 2012, the House of Representatives passed the Conference Report to H.R. 4348 by a bipartisan vote of 373 to 52. 

On June 29, 2012, the Senate passed the Conference Report to 

H.R. 4348 by a bipartisan vote of 74 to 19. 

On July 6, 2012, the President of the United States signed H.R. 

4348 into law (P.L. 112–141). 

113TH CONGRESS

Hearings—First session 

On March 13, 2013, the Committee held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Keeping College Within Reach: Examining Opportunities to Strengthen Federal Student Loan Programs.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine ways to strengthen federal stuVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:13 Jul 16, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR678.XXX HR678

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

dent loans, as well as how moving to a market-based or variable 

interest rate on all federal student loans could benefit both students and taxpayers. Testifying before the Committee were Dr. 

Deborah J. Lucas, Sloan Distinguished Professor of Finance, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Mr. 

Jason Delisle, Director, Federal Education Budget Project, The 

New America Foundation, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Justin Draeger, 

President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. 

Charmaine Mercer, Vice President of Policy, Alliance for Excellent 

Education, Washington, D.C. 

On April 9, 2013, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training held a 

hearing in Monroe, Michigan, entitled ‘‘Reviving Our Economy: The 

Role of Higher Education in Job Growth and Development.’’ The 

purpose of the hearing was to highlight work being done by local 

colleges and universities to respond to local and state economic 

needs. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Mr. Henry 

Lievens, Commissioner, Monroe County, Monroe, Michigan; Ms. 

Lynette Dowler, Plant Director, Fossil Generation, DTE Energy, 

Detroit, Michigan; Ms. Susan Smith, Executive Director, Economic 

Development Partnership of Hillsdale County, Jonesville, Michigan; Mr. Dan Fairbanks, United Auto Workers International Representative, UAW–GM Skill Development and Training Department, Detroit, Michigan; Dr. David E. Nixon, President, Monroe 

County Community College, Monroe, Michigan; Sister Peg Albert, 

OP, Ph.D., President, Siena Heights University, Adrian, Michigan; 

Dr. Michelle Shields, Career Coach/Workforce Development Director, Jackson Community College, Jackson, Michigan; and Mr. 

Douglas A. Levy, Director of Financial Aid, Macomb Community 

College, Warren, Michigan. 

On April 16, 2013, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping College 

Within Reach: The Role of Federal Student Aid Programs.’’ The 

purpose of the hearing was to examine shifting the focus of federal 

student aid programs from enhancing access to improving student 

outcomes. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Mr. Terry W. 

Hartle, Senior Vice President, Division of Government and Public 

Affairs, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C.; Ms. 

Moriah Miles, State Chair, Minnesota State University Student Association, Mankato, Minnesota; Ms. Patricia McGuire, President, 

Trinity Washington University, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Dan 

Madzelan, Former Employee (Retired), U.S. Department of Education, University Park, Maryland. 

On April 24, 2013, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping College 

Within Reach: Enhancing Transparency for Students, Families, 

and Taxpayers.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine ways 

to improve the information provided by the federal government to 

inform students and families about their postsecondary education 

options. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. Donald E. 

Heller, Dean, College of Education, Michigan State University, 

East Lansing, Michigan; Mr. Alex Garrido, Student, Keiser UniverVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:13 Jul 16, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR678.XXX HR678

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

sity, Miami, Florida; Dr. Nicole Farmer Hurd, Founder and Executive Director, National College Advising Corps, Carrboro, North 

Carolina; and Mr. Travis Reindl, Program Director, Postsecondary 

Education, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Washington, D.C. 

On June 13, 2013, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping College 

Within Reach: Discussing Program Quality through Accreditation.’’ 

The purpose of the hearing was to examine the historical role of 

accreditation, discuss the role of regional and national accreditors 

in measuring institutional quality, and contemplate areas for reform. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. Elizabeth H. 

Sibolski, President, Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dr. Michale McComis, Executive Director, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, Arlington, Virginia; Ms. Anne D. Neal, President, American 

Council of Trustees and Alumni, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Kevin 

Carey, Director of the Education Policy Program, The New America 

Foundation, Washington, D.C. 

On July 9, 2013, the Committee held a hearing in Washington, 

D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping College Within Reach: Improving Higher 

Education through Innovation.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to 

highlight innovation in higher education occurring at the state and 

institutional level and in the private sector. Testifying before the 

Committee were Mr. Scott Jenkins, Director of External Relations, 

Western Governors University, Salt Lake City, Utah; Dr. Pamela 

J. Tate, President and Chief Executive Officer, Council for Adult 

and Experiential Learning, Chicago, Illinois; Dr. Joann A. 

Boughman, Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University 

System of Maryland, Adelphi, Maryland; and Mr. Burck Smith, 

Chief Executive Officer and Founder, StraighterLine, Baltimore, 

Maryland. 

On September 11, 2013, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping 

College Within Reach: Supporting Higher Education Opportunities 

for America’s Servicemembers and Veterans.’’ The purpose of the 

hearing was to examine the efforts of higher education to improve 

postsecondary education opportunities for servicemembers and veterans. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Mrs. Kimrey W. 

Rhinehardt, Vice President for Federal and Military Affairs, The 

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Dr. Arthur F. Kirk, Jr., President, Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida; Dr. Russell S. Kitchner, Vice President for Regulatory and 

Governmental Relations, American Public University System, 

Charles Town, West Virginia; and Dr. Ken Sauer, Senior Associate 

Commissioner for Research and Academic Affairs, Indiana Commission for Higher Education, Indianapolis, Indiana. 

On September 18, 2013, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping 

College Within Reach: Improving Access and Affordability through 

Innovative Partnerships.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine the efforts of higher education institutions to expand access and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

reduce costs by partnering with local employers, other colleges, or 

online course providers. Testifying before the Subcommittee were 

Dr. Jeffrey Docking, President, Adrian College, Adrian, Michigan; 

Ms. Paula R. Singer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Laureate Global Products and Services, Baltimore, Maryland; Dr. Rich 

Baraniuk, Professor, Rice University, and Founder, Connexions, 

Houston, Texas; and Dr. Charles Lee Isbell, Jr., Professor and Senior Associate Dean, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of 

Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. 

On November 13, 2013, the Committee held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping College Within Reach: Simplifying 

Federal Student Aid.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine 

the need to streamline, consolidate, and simplify federal student 

aid programs. Testifying before the Committee were Ms. Kristin D. 

Conklin, Founding Partner, HCM Strategies, LLC, Washington, 

D.C.; Dr. Sandy Baum, Research Professor of Education Policy, 

George Washington University Graduate School of Education and 

Human Development, and Senior Fellow, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.; Ms. Jennifer Mishory, J.D., Deputy Director, Young 

Invincibles, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Jason Delisle, Director, 

Federal Education Budget Project, New America Foundation, 

Washington, D.C. 

On December 3, 2013, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping 

College Within Reach: Strengthening Pell Grants for Future Generations.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine Pell Grant 

program reform proposals to better target funds to the neediest 

students and put the program on a fiscally responsible and sustainable path. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Mr. Justin 

Draeger, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, Washington, D.C.; 

Dr. Jenna Ashley Robinson, Director of Outreach, John W. Pope 

Center for Higher Education Policy, Raleigh, North Carolina; Mr. 

Michael Dannenberg, Director of Higher Education and Education 

Finance Policy, The Education Trust, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. 

Richard C. Heath, Director of Student Financial Services, Anne 

Arundel Community College, Arnold, Maryland. 

Legislative action—First session 

On May 9, 2013, Chairman John Kline (R–MN) and Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R–NC) introduced H.R. 

1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. The bill moved all 

federal student loans (except Perkins loans) to a market-based interest rate. 

On May 16, 2013, the Committee considered H.R. 1911 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of 

Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 24 to 13. 

The Committee considered and adopted the following amendment 

to H.R. 1911: 

• Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R–NC) offered an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute to make a technical 

change to the bill. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

The Committee further considered the following amendments to 

H.R. 1911, which were not adopted: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

• Rep. Joe Heck (R–NV) offered an amendment to allocate a portion of the savings generated under the bill to Pell Grants. The 

amendment was withdrawn. • Rep. Joe Heck (R–NV) offered an amendment to provide the 

Secretary of Education with authority to reduce the interest rate 

on student loans if a borrower makes the first 48 payments on 

time. The amendment was withdrawn. • Rep. John Tierney (D–MA) offered an amendment to set the 

federal student loan interest rates at the same rate the Federal Reserve charges to banks for two years. The amendment failed by a 

vote of 14 to 23. • Rep. Joe Courtney (D–CT) offered an amendment to extend the 

3.4 percent interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans for two years. 

The amendment failed by a vote of 15 to 21. 

On May 23, 2013, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1911 

by a bipartisan vote of 221 to 198. 

On July 24, 2013, the Senate passed a substitute version of H.R. 

1911, the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, by a bipartisan 

vote of 81 to 18. The legislation allowed student loan interest rates 

to reset once a year by the market, but they would be locked into 

a fixed rate once the loan is disbursed to the student. Interest rates 

would be set using the following formulas: • Undergraduate Stafford loans (subsidized and unsubsidized): 

10-year Treasury Note plus 2.05 percent, capped at 8.25 percent. • Graduate Stafford loans: 10-year Treasury Note plus 3.6 percent, capped at 9.5 percent • PLUS loans (graduate and parent): 10-year Treasury Note plus 

4.6 percent, capped at 10.5 percent. 

On July 31, 2013, the House of Representatives agreed to suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1911 

by a bipartisan vote of 392 to 31. 

On August 9, 2013, the President of the United States signed 

H.R. 1911 into law (P.L. 113–28). 

On May 13, 2013, Rep. Luke Messer (R–IN) introduced H.R. 

1949, the Improving Postsecondary Education Data for Students 

Act. The bill directed the Secretary to convene an Advisory Committee on Improving Postsecondary Education Data to conduct a 

study on the factors students and families want, need, and already 

consider when choosing a higher education institution. 

On May 16, 2013, the Committee considered H.R. 1949 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of 

Representatives by a voice vote. The Committee considered and 

adopted the following amendment to H.R. 1949: 

• Rep. Luke Messer (R–IN) offered an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to H.R. 1949 to (1) include individuals who represent undergraduate and graduate education; college and career 

counselors at secondary schools; experts in data policy, collection, 

and use; and experts in labor markets on the list of individuals required to be represented on the Advisory Committee on Improving 

Postsecondary Education Data; (2) ensure individuals on the advisory committee represent economic, racial, and geographically diverse populations; (3) require the advisory committee to examine 

information related to the sources of financial assistance, including 

federal student loans, as part of the required aspects of the study; 

(4) require the advisory committee to examine how information reVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:13 Jul 16, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR678.XXX HR678

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

garding student outcomes should be disaggregated for first-generation students; and (5) provide other conforming and technical 

changes to the bill. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

On May 22, 2013, the House of Representatives agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1949 by voice vote. The bill was sent 

to the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On July 10, 2013, Chairman John Kline (R–MN), Subcommittee 

Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R–NC), and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D– 

FL) introduced H.R. 2637, the Supporting Academic Freedom 

through Regulatory Relief Act. The bill, which included the text of 

the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act (H.R. 

2117) and the Kline/Foxx/Hastings amendment to H.R. 1 from the 

112th Congress, repealed the credit hour, state authorization, and 

gainful employment regulations and amended the statute to clarify 

the incentive compensation regulation. Additionally, the bill prohibited the U.S. Department of Education from issuing related regulations until after Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. On July 24, 2013, the Committee considered H.R. 2637 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of 

Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 22 to 13. 

The Committee considered and adopted the following amendment 

to H.R. 2637: • Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R–NC) offered an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute to change a subsection 

title in the legislation. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

The Committee further considered the following amendment to 

H.R. 2637, which was not adopted: • Rep. Tim Bishop (D–NY) offered an amendment to strike the 

prohibition on the U.S. Department of Education from issuing regulations related to state authorization, gainful employment, and 

credit hour. The amendment failed by a vote of 13 to 22. 

Hearings—Second session 

On January 28, 2014, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping 

College Within Reach: Sharing Best Practices for Serving Low-Income and First Generation Students.’’ The purpose of the hearing 

was to highlight best practices at institutions of higher education 

for serving low-income and first generation students. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. James Anderson, Chancellor, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Mrs. Mary 

Beth Del Balzo, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, The College of Westchester, White Plains, New York; 

Mr. Josse Alex Garrido, Graduate Student, University of Texas— 

Pan American, Edinburg, Texas; and Rev. Dennis H. 

Holtschneider, President, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois. 

On February 27, 2013, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education and Subcommittee on Higher Education and 

Workforce Training held a joint hearing in Washington, D.C., on 

‘‘Exploring Efforts to Strengthen the Teaching Profession.’’ The 

purpose of the hearing was to discuss the state of teacher preparation nationwide. Testifying before the subcommittees were Dr. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

Deborah A. Gist, Commissioner, Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Providence, Rhode Island; Dr. 

Marcy Singer-Gabella, Professor of the Practice of Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee; Dr. Heather Peske, Associate Commissioner for Educator Quality, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Malden, Massachusetts; and Ms. Christina Hall, Co-Founder and Co-Director, Urban 

Teacher Center, Baltimore, Maryland. 

On March 12, 2014, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Examining the Mismanagement of the Student Loan Rehabilitation Process.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine the U.S. Department of Education’s ability to oversee the processing of rehabilitated loans 

issued under the Direct Loan program. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Ms. Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director of Education, 

Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Boston, Massachusetts; The Honorable Kathleen 

Tighe, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.; Mr. James Runcie, Chief Operating Officer, Federal 

Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.; and 

Ms. Peg Julius, Executive Director of Enrollment Management, 

Kirkwood Community College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 

On March 20, 2014, the Committee held a hearing in Mesa, Arizona, entitled ‘‘Reviving our Economy: Supporting a 21st Century 

Workforce.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to explore the role of 

local higher education institutions in fostering job creation and 

growth through innovative partnerships with the business community and new modes of teaching delivery. Testifying before the 

Committee were The Honorable Rick Heumann, Vice Mayor, City 

of Chandler, Chandler, Arizona; Ms. Cathleen Barton, Education 

Manager, Intel Corporate Affairs, Southwestern United States, 

Intel Corporation, Chandler, Arizona; Mr. Lee D. Lambert, J.D., 

Chancellor, Pima Community College, Tucson, Arizona; Dr. William Pepicello, President, University of Phoenix, Tempe, Arizona; 

Dr. Michael Crow, President, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona; Dr. Ann Weaver Hart, President, The University of Arizona, 

Tucson, Arizona; Dr. Ernest A. Lara, President, Estrella Mountain 

Community College, Avondale, Arizona; and Ms. Christy Farley, 

Vice President of Government Affairs and Business Partnerships, 

Northern Arizona University, Phoenix, Arizona. 

On April 2, 2014, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., entitled ‘‘Keeping College 

Within Reach: Meeting the Needs of Contemporary Students.’’ The 

purpose of the hearing was to examine how institutions, states, and 

other entities assist contemporary college students in accessing and 

completing postsecondary education. Testifying before the Committee were Dr. George A. Pruitt, President, Thomas Edison State 

College, Trenton, New Jersey; Dr. Kevin Gilligan, Chairman and 

Chief Executive Officer, Capella Education Company, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota; Mr. David Moldoff, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, AcademyOne, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania; Dr. Joann A. 

Boughman, Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University 

System of Maryland, Adelphi, Maryland; Mr. Stan Jones, President, Complete College America, Indianapolis, Indiana; and Dr. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

Brooks A. Keel, President, Georgia Southern University, 

Statesboro, Georgia. 

Legislative action—Second session 

On September 19, 2013, Rep. Matt Salmon (R–AZ), Rep. Susan 

Brooks (R–IN), and Rep. Jared Polis (D–CO) introduced H.R. 3136, 

the Advancing Competency-Based Education Demonstration Project 

Act of 2013. The bill directed the Secretary to select institutions or 

consortia of institutions for voluntary participation in competencybased education demonstration projects. The demonstration 

projects would have provided participating entities with the ability 

to offer competency-based education programs that do not meet certain statutory and regulatory requirements which would otherwise 

prevent them from participating in federal student aid programs. 

On July 10, 2014, the Committee considered H.R. 3136 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of 

Representatives by a voice vote. The Committee considered and 

adopted the following amendment to H.R. 3136: • Rep. Matt Salmon (R–AZ) and Rep. Jared Polis (D–CO) offered 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute to add certain requirements to the applications to participate in a competency-based education project; allow eligible entities to submit amendments to their 

previously-approved applications; set requirements for the entities 

the Secretary must choose to participate in the programs; require 

institutions to provide student information to the director of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES); require the Director of IES to 

annually evaluate each project and provide a report with specified 

information to the authorizing committees; authorize funds to be 

available from the amount appropriated for salaries and expenses 

of the U.S. Department of Education, and make conforming and 

technical changes to the introduced bill. The amendment was 

adopted by voice vote. 

The Committee further considered the following amendment to 

H.R. 3136, which was not adopted: 

• Rep. Tierney (D–MA) offered an amendment that would have 

allowed students with federal student loans and private student 

loans issued prior to 2013 to refinance those loans into new federal 

loans at the interest rate set for the 2013–2014 academic year. The 

amendment was ruled non-germane. Ranking Member George Miller (D–CA) appealed the ruling of the chair. Rep. Glenn Thompson 

(R–PA) offered a motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the 

chair, which was adopted by a vote of 22 to 16. 

On July 23, 2014, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 

3136 and passed it, as amended, by a recorded vote of 414–0 on 

July 23, 2014. The bill was sent to the Senate and was referred to 

the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On June 26, 2014, Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R– 

NC) and Rep. Luke Messer (R–IN) introduced H.R. 4983, the 

Strengthening Transparency in Higher Education Act. The bill simplified and streamlined the information made publicly available by 

the Secretary regarding institutions of higher education. 

On July 10, 2014, the Committee considered H.R. 4983 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of 

Representatives by a voice vote. The Committee considered and 

adopted the following amendment to H.R. 4983: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

• Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R–NC) offered an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute that required additional 

information on the College Dashboard; required the Secretary to 

conduct consumer testing in consultation with appropriate federal 

departments and agencies; ensured consumer testing addresses 

whether the College Dashboard provides useful and relevant information to students and families; required the Secretary to submit 

to the authorizing committees recommendations based on the results of consumer testing; set new minimum requirements for net 

price calculators, required funding to come from funds already appropriated to maintain the College Navigator; and made other conforming and technical changes. The amendment was adopted by 

voice vote. 

The Committee further considered the following amendment to 

H.R. 4983, which was not adopted: • Ranking Member George Miller (D–CA) offered an amendment 

that required the Commissioner of Education Statistics to establish 

a formula for determining the percentage of student borrowers who 

have completed their course of study and who are in repayment or 

in an authorized deferment period at three, five and 10 years after 

completion of a program of study. The amendment failed by a vote 

of 13 to 21. 

On July 23, 2014, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 

4983 under suspension of the rules. The bill was agreed to by voice 

vote, sent to the Senate, and referred to the Senate Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On June 26, 2014, Rep. Brett Guthrie (R–KY) and Rep. Richard 

Hudson (R–NC) introduced H.R. 4984, the Empowering Students 

through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. The bill amended the 

loan counseling requirements under the Higher Education Act and 

required counseling for Federal Pell Grant recipients. 

On July 10, 2014, the Committee considered H.R. 4984 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of 

Representatives by voice vote. The Committee considered and 

adopted the following amendment to H.R. 4984: 

• Reps. Brett Guthrie (R–KY) and Suzanne Bonamici (D–OR) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute that removed the 

requirement that annual counseling for Pell Grant recipients be 

tied to disbursement of the grant; required additional information 

be disclosed to borrowers during annual counseling and exit counseling sessions; required institutions to provide annual counseling 

to borrowers receiving Parent PLUS loans; required any funds used 

to carry out the act to come from funds already appropriated to 

maintain the Financial Awareness Counseling Tool; and made conforming and technical changes. The amendment was adopted by 

voice vote. 

The Committee further considered the following amendment to 

H.R. 4984, which was not adopted: 

• Rep. Susan Davis (D–CA) offered an amendment to modify the 

rule requiring for-profit colleges to receive at least 10 percent of 

their revenue from sources other than the U.S. Department of Education to remain eligible for federal student aid to include all federal aid, including veterans’ educational benefits and some Workforce Investment Act funds, in the 90 percent portion of the calculation and only private funds in the 10 percent portion of the calculaVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:13 Jul 16, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR678.XXX HR678

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

tion. The amendment was ruled non-germane. Ranking Member 

George Miller (D–CA) appealed the ruling of the chair. Rep. Glenn 

Thompson (R–PA) offered a motion to table the appeal of the ruling 

of the chair, which was adopted by a vote of 20 to 13. 

On July 24, 2014, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 

4984 and passed it, as amended, by a vote of 405–11. The bill was 

sent to the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

114TH CONGRESS

Hearings—First session 

On February 4, 2015, the Committee held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Expanding Opportunity in America’s Schools and 

Workplaces.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to allow Committee 

members to learn about efforts made by state leaders to strengthen 

education, to make sure those who graduate are prepared to pursue 

a postsecondary education and compete in the workforce, and promote efforts to spur job creation. Testifying before the Committee 

were Dr. Michael Amiridis, Provost and Executive Vice President 

for Academic Affairs, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 

South Carolina; Mr. Drew Greenblatt, President and CEO, Marlin 

Steel Wire Products, Baltimore, Maryland; Dr. Lawrence Mishel, 

Ph.D., President, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.; and 

The Honorable Mike Pence, Governor, State of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana. 

On March 17, 2015, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Strengthening America’s 

Higher Education System.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to explore policy proposals that align with the Committee’s four pillars 

for reauthorization of the HEA: (1) empowering students and families to make informed decisions; (2) simplifying and improving student aid; (3) promoting innovation, access, and completion; and (4) 

ensuring strong accountability and a limited federal role. Testifying 

before the Subcommittee were Mr. Willis Goldsmith, Partner, 

Jones Day, New York, New York who testified on behalf of the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Stan Soloway, President and CEO, 

Professional Services Council, Arlington, Virginia; Ms. Angela 

Styles, Partner, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C.; and Ms. 

Karla Walter, Associate Director, American Worker Project, Center 

for American Progress, Washington, D.C. 

On April 30, 2015, the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Improving College Access 

and Completion for Low-Income and First-Generation Students.’’ 

The purpose of the hearing was to explore policy proposals and best 

practices to strengthen programs to help disadvantaged students 

access and complete higher education. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Dr. Laura Perna, James S. Riepe Professor, Executive Director, Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dr. Charles J. 

Alexander, Associate Vice Provost for Student Diversity, Director, 

Academic Advancement Program, Associate Adjunct Professor, University of California, Los Angeles, California; Dr. Michelle Asha 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

Cooper, President, Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Joe D. May, Chancellor, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas, Texas. 

On September 10, 2015, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Preventing and 

Responding to Sexual Assault on College Campuses.’’ The purpose 

of the hearing was to explore policy proposals and best practices to 

help institutions address and respond to campus sexual assault 

and violence. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Ms. Dana 

Scaduto, General Counsel, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania; Dr. Penny Rue, Vice President for Campus Life, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Ms. Lisa M. Maatz, 

M.A., Vice President for Government Relations, American Association of University Women, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Joseph 

Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director, Foundation for Individual 

Rights in Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

On November 18, 2015, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 

Training, together with the House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations held 

a hearing in Washington, D.C., on ‘‘Federal Student Aid: Performance-Based Organization Review.’’ The purpose of the hearing was 

to review the Office of Federal Student Aid’s (FSA) responsibilities 

as a Performance-Based Organization (PBO), evaluate the PBO’s 

performance, and identify possible areas of reform. Testifying before the subcommittees were Mr. James Runcie, Chief Operating 

Officer, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.; Ms. Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director, Education Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.; 

The Honorable Kathleen Tighe, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Ben Miller, Senior Director, Postsecondary Education, Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Justin Draeger, President, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, Washington, D.C. 

Legislative action—First session 

On July 23, 2015, Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx along with Chairman 

John Kline (R–MN), Ranking Member Robert C. Scott (D–VA), and 

Reps. Luke Messer (R–IN), Gregorio Sablan (D–MP), Tim Walberg 

(R–MI), Joe Heck (R–NV), Buddy Carter (R–GA), Elise Stefanik 

(R–NY), Susan Davis (D–CA), Rau ́l Grijalva (D–AZ), and Mark 

DeSaulnier (D–CA) introduced H.R. 3178, the Strengthening Transparency in Higher Education Act. The bill ensures straightforward 

and useful information is easily accessible to students and parents 

and improves coordination between federal agencies to publish information about colleges and universities. 

On July 23, 2015, Rep. Brett Guthrie (R–KY) along with Chairman John Kline (R–MN), Ranking Member Robert C. Scott (D–VA), 

and Reps. Rick Allen (R–GA), Suzanne Bonamici (D–OR), Duncan 

Hunter (R–CA), Tim Walberg (R–MI), Joe Heck (R–NV), Luke 

Messer (R–IN), Buddy Carter (R–GA), Elise Stefanik (R–NY), 

Susan Davis (D–CA), Rau ́l Grijalva (D–AZ), Gregorio Sablan (D– 

MP), Mark Pocan (D–WI), Mark Takano (D–CA), Katherine Clark 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

(D–MA), Mark DeSaulnier (D–CA), and Richard Hudson (R–NC) 

introduced H.R. 3179, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. The bill promotes financial literacy through enhanced counseling for all recipients of federal financial aid. 

On September 24, 2015, Reps. Mike Bishop (R–MI) and Mark 

Pocan (D–WI) introduced H.R. 3594, the Higher Education Extension Act of 2015. The bill extends the authorization of the National 

Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity and the 

authority of institutions of higher education to make loans to new 

borrowers under the federal Perkins loan program through September 30, 2016. 

On September 28, 2015, the House of Representatives passed 

H.R. 3594 by a voice vote. The bill was sent to the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions. The Senate amended the bill to extend the authorization 

of the federal Perkins loan program to September 30, 2017. The 

amendment was adopted by unanimous consent, and the underlying legislation was subsequently passed in the Senate on December 16, 2015, by voice vote. 

On December 17, 2015, the House agreed to the Senate amendment by unanimous consent. The Higher Education Extension Act 

of 2015 was signed into law by the President on December 18, 

2015. 

Legislative action—Second session 

On June 22, 2016, the Committee on Education and the Workforce considered H.R. 3178 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House of Representatives by voice vote. 

The Committee considered and adopted the following amendment 

to H.R. 3178: 

• Subcommittee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R–NC) offered an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute to make conforming and 

technical changes. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

On June 22, 2016, the Committee considered H.R. 3179 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House 

of Representatives by voice vote. The Committee considered and 

adopted the following amendment to H.R. 3179: 

• Rep. Brett Guthrie (R–KY) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to make conforming and technical changes. The 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

On June 20, 2016, Rep. Joe Heck (R–NV) along with Reps. David 

‘‘Phil’’ Roe (R–TN), Jared Polis (D–CO), and Mark Pocan (D–WI) 

introduced H.R. 5528, the Simplifying the Application for Student 

Aid Act. The bill ensures continued allowance for earlier notification of federal student aid, leverages technology to make the application for federal student aid more accessible and easier to fill out, 

and provides more time for aid administrators to verify and package student aid. 

On June 22, 2016, the Committee considered H.R. 5528 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House 

of Representatives by voice vote. The Committee considered and 

adopted the following amendment to H.R. 5528: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

• Rep. Joe Heck (R–NV) offered an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute to make conforming and technical changes. The 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

On June 20, 2016, Rep. Joe Heck (R–NV) along with Reps. 

Rube ́n Hinojosa (D–TX) and Raul Ruiz (D–CA) introduced H.R. 

5529, the Accessing Higher Education Opportunities Act. The bill 

expands the authorized uses of funds for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) so they may promote dual enrollment opportunities 

and encourage Hispanic students to pursue doctoral degree programs in the healthcare industry. 

On June 22, 2016, the Committee considered H.R. 5529 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House 

of Representatives by voice vote. The Committee considered and 

adopted the following amendment to H.R. 5529: • Rep. Joe Heck (R–NV) offered an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute to make conforming and technical changes. The 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

On June 20, 2016, Reps. Alma Adams (D–NC) and Bradley 

Byrne (R–AL) introduced H.R. 5530, the HBCU Capital Financing 

Improvement Act. The bill improves the program by requiring the 

advisory board to send an annual report to Congress regarding the 

status of the Historically Black College and University (HBCU) 

Capital Financing Program. Additionally, the bill renames the escrow account to ‘‘bond insurance fund.’’ Lastly, this bill allows for 

financial counseling to potential eligible HBCUs to assist in their 

preparation to qualify, apply for, and maintain a capital improvement loan. 

On June 22, 2016, the Committee considered H.R. 5530 in legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to the House 

of Representatives by voice vote. The Committee considered and 

adopted the following amendment to H.R. 5530: • Rep. Alma Adams (D–NC) offered an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to make conforming and technical changes. The 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

SUMMARY

The Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act provides for 

continued earlier notification of federal student aid awards and for 

better utilization of technology to simplify the FAFSA, and it 

makes the FAFSA more accessible to students and families. 

The legislation ensures students will be able to apply for federal 

student aid using income data from the tax return filed one year 

prior to the current application cycle. Since a family’s tax return 

uses income data from the prior year, the process of using a previous return is often referred to as ‘‘prior-prior year.’’ The legislation also changes the Pell Grant inflationary increase calculation 

from the end of the calendar year to the end of the fiscal year, 

thereby allowing aid administrators to package accurate aid packages earlier. 

The legislation makes the FAFSA more easily accessible by requiring the Secretary to make the application available on a mobile 

device. The Secretary is required to consumer test the mobile and 

online versions of the FAFSA with students in various income situations and with other experts in student financial assistance to ensure the applications are easy to understand and use. The legislaVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:13 Jul 16, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR678.XXX HR678

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

tion also requires the Secretary to periodically report on FAFSA 

simplification efforts and the needs of limited-English proficient 

students using the FAFSA. 

Additionally, the legislation simplifies the FAFSA by requiring 

the Secretary to make every effort to allow students and families 

to easily import their Internal Revenue Service (IRS) income data. 

COMMITTEE VIEWS

Introduction 

Federal, state, and institutional aid is vitally important to many 

potential and current postsecondary students. However, the federal 

financial aid system is so complex that it has left many confused 

about the best options available to pay for their higher education. 

This is especially true for students whose parents or family members did not attend college. 

For many students, this confusion begins when they attempt to 

fill out the FAFSA, the form that helps financial aid officers determine students’ eligibility for financial aid, including the Pell Grant, 

student loans, work-study opportunities, and state and institutional aid. The FAFSA form—with the paper version running 10 

pages and over 100 questions long—is too complex for many students and families to easily understand and complete. Additionally, 

the traditional aid application timeline has not served the best interest of students, families, and taxpayers. 

The timing of the aid application process and the application 

itself must be improved so students and families can more easily 

apply and make informed decisions about their postsecondary education options. 

Earlier notification of federal student aid 

To help streamline and improve the federal student aid process, 

Reps. Joe Heck (R–NV), David ‘‘Phil’’ Roe (R–TN), Jared Polis (D– 

CO), and Mark Pocan (D–WI) introduced H.R. 5528, the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act, to ensure continued allowance for earlier notification of federal student aid. 

Historically, the FAFSA was available on January 1 for the upcoming year, well after many college application deadlines, and required applicants to provide income from the tax return due a few 

months later in April. In order for students to take advantage of 

the ability to easily transfer their IRS income data onto the 

FAFSA, they had to wait until after they filed their tax returns. 

These timing inconsistencies may have caused delays in the submission of FAFSA forms, leaving financial aid administrators little 

time to put together aid packages for incoming students. According 

to a 2013 report published by the National Association of Student 

Financial Aid Administrators: 

Under the current structure, delays can cause an unfavorable chain reaction: a delay in completing the income 

tax return can mean a delay in submitting the FAFSA, 

which can result in a delay in financial aid notification— 

and potentially a reduced amount of financial aid. This occurs because some forms of financial aid have a limited pot 

of funds, which is distributed on a first-come, first-served 

basis. Every college student needs to know where they 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

1https://www.nasfaa.org/uploads/documents/ppy—report.pdf. p. 3. 2http://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398531. 

stand sooner rather than later, so the student can adjust 

and prepare for the costs of college.1

In order to provide students with earlier aid notifications and assist administrators with more time to package and award aid, 

stakeholders have long called for a change to allow borrowers to 

apply for aid using prior-prior year data. At a 2015 hearing of the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on 

Higher Education and Workforce Trainingh earing, the Honorable 

Mitch Daniels, former Governor of Indiana and current President 

of Purdue University, testified about the benefits of changing to 

prior-prior year: 

Basing decisions on a prior-prior year (PPY) basis would 

enable better alignment of the application process with existing IRS data. The current system, which uses the previous year’s financial records, is prone to delays and complications that result from the routine tax process. Switching to PPY would allow time for tax forms to be processed, 

corrected and analyzed before admissions decisions are 

made and FAFSA applications are due. It would be advantageous both in terms of financial planning and connecting 

the application to existing data.2

In the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act, Congress provided the Secretary the authority to allow the use of prior-prior 

year income. However, the Secretary is only now utilizing that authority. Starting this year, applicants can complete the FAFSA 

using prior-prior year income. In addition, the Secretary will make 

the application available in October 2016, three months earlier 

than usual. The Committee recognizes the benefits of using priorprior year data to students, institutions, and taxpayers, and is committed to ensuring this commonsense policy remains in place in future academic years. 

The earlier aid process timeline provided by prior-prior year allows other aspects of the aid process to occur sooner as well. H.R. 

5528 takes steps to make sure other aspects of the federal student 

aid system align with an earlier timeline by changing the Pell 

Grant inflationary increase calculation from occurring at the end of 

the calendar year to the end of the fiscal year. This will allow aid 

administrators to offer accurate aid packages to prospective students earlier, giving them more time to weigh options and make 

the most informed decisions about where to attend and how to finance a higher education. However, the Committee does not intend 

the move to prior-prior year to complicate income eligibility determinations for TRIO program participants and believes TRIO program administrators should continue to be allowed to use financial 

aid data from the FAFSA to verify a student’s eligibility to be 

served by TRIO. 

Simplifying the FAFSA for students and families 

Questions on the FAFSA form range from the net worth of investments to complicated tax questions and are often difficult for 

students and families to understand. This confusion can deter apVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:13 Jul 16, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR678.XXX HR678

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

plicants from completing the form, preventing students from receiving financial aid for which they may otherwise have been eligible. 

While steps have been taken to simplify the FAFSA through the 

use of skip logic and reducing the number of questions families 

must answer, the Committee believes more can be done. 

The move to prior-prior year and the use of IRS data retrieval 

tool (DRT) will strengthen the integrity of federal financial aid and 

reduce verification burdens on institutions of higher education. Before prior-prior year, student aid administrators had limited time 

to verify the accuracy of students’ income data. As Michael Bennett, Associate Vice President of Financial Aid Services at St. Petersburg College in Florida, discussed at the March 2015 hearing 

entitled ‘‘Strengthening America’s Higher Education System’’: 

With more completed, and therefore accurate, tax information, verification burden for both students and institutions would be dramatically reduced through an increased 

use of the IRS Data Retrieval Tool. This reduced burden 

will free up more time for financial aid administrators to 

spend on counseling students. 

The Committee believes the DRT has significantly reduced the 

burden of filling out the FAFSA by allowing families to import 

their tax information from the IRS, which eliminates many of the 

questions students and families struggle to answer. The implementation of prior-prior year allows more families to immediately utilize the DRT by eliminating the delay between filing taxes and the 

DRT becoming available. The Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act directs the Secretary to allow married taxpayers filing 

separately to use the DRT as single taxpayers and married taxpayers filing jointly can currently. The legislation also directs the 

Secretary of Education to make every effort to utilize technology to 

strengthen the DRT and eliminate the need for students and families to answer questions that are not relevant to them. 

H.R. 5528 requires the Secretary to continue examining ways to 

simplify the FAFSA through the DRT and report to Congress biennially on the U.S. Department of Education’s efforts. The Committee encourages the Secretary to consider any redistribution of 

federal, state, and institutional aid that may occur through such 

simplification efforts as well as any potential limitations of using 

IRS data sufficient to calculate need for the determination of state 

aid. The Committee additionally encourages the Secretary to consider any other means of simplification made possible through the 

use of prior-prior year data. 

The Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act requires the 

Secretary to conduct consumer testing to ensure the electronic 

versions of the FAFSA are easily understandable by students and 

families. The Committee appreciates the work done to make the 

FAFSA more user-friendly but believes more can be done to make 

sure the FAFSA is as understandable as possible. By requiring the 

Secretary to conduct consumer testing with current and prospective 

college students, family members of such students, financial aid application experts, and students who do and do not qualify for the 

automatic zero expected family contribution calculation or the Simplified Needs Test, the electronic versions of the FAFSA can be 

strengthened for efficiency and design. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

3https://www.edvisors.com/media/files/student-aid-policy/20150112-leaving-money-on-thetable.pdf. p. 3. 4http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/20/the-numbers-behind-the-broadbandhomework-gap/. 

Promoting FAFSA access 

One of the main purposes of FAFSA simplification is to make the 

form more accessible to students, thereby making a higher education more attainable. Since the creation of the online FAFSA in 

1997, FAFSA completion time has decreased. However, this online 

application is not always easily accessible. A recent report found 

two million students who would have been eligible for the Pell 

Grant did not fill out the FAFSA. Roughly 23 percent of these students cited the difficulty of the financial aid form or lack of information about how to apply as a reason for not completing the 

FASFA.3 Another report found 40 percent of all families with incomes below $25,000 and with school-age children lack a high 

speed internet connection at home.4 Students with families in this 

income bracket are likely eligible for a Pell Grant and the most 

likely to receive state and institutional aid, both of which often rely 

on FAFSA data. 

The Committee believes barriers to access should be removed 

and students should not be precluded from applying for aid because 

their families do not have ready access to computers or Internet. 

For this reason, the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act 

requires the Secretary to make the FAFSA available on mobile 

phones, through a mobile application or another technology tool. 

Additionally, a student’s access to federal financial aid should not 

be hampered by the limited English proficiency of their parents. 

Complicated financial questions are sometimes best understood 

when asked in one’s native language, similar to how the IRS offers 

assistance to taxpayers in multiple languages. 

The FAFSA relies in large part on IRS data, and there is evidence that parents whose native languages are other than English 

are relying on costly translation services to enter their information 

and help their children apply for federal financial aid. The Committee believes the FAFSA should be free for all American citizens 

and additional expenses for translators should be avoided. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to take special efforts to make the 

FAFSA more accessible to families with limited English proficiency, 

in multiple languages similar to IRS practices cited above. In addition to simplifying the FAFSA completion process for whole populations of students and their families, this legislation also requires 

the Secretary to periodically report on the needs of limited-English 

proficient students using the FAFSA. 

Conclusion 

For many students and families, federal financial aid makes a 

postsecondary education possible. Confusion surrounding the student aid system, however, can act as a barrier to students attempting to access this assistance. The Simplifying the Application for 

Student Aid Act takes an important step toward simplifying the financial aid process by ensuring students and families can apply 

more easily and at a time that enables them to make the most informed decisions about their education. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

States the short title is the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act. 

Section 2. Using data from second preceding year 

Amends section 480(a) of the Higher Education Act to require the 

Secretary to allow for the use of income from the second preceding 

tax year when applicants fill out the FAFSA. 

Section 3. Calculation of annual adjustment percentage for Federal 

Pell Grants 

Amends section 401(b) of the Higher Education Act to allow the 

adjustment percentage for Federal Pell Grants to be calculated at 

the end of each fiscal year instead of the end of each calendar year. 

Section 4. FAFSA simplification 

Amends section 483(a) of the Higher Education Act to require the 

Secretary to make the FAFSA available through a technology tool 

for mobile devices. Requires the Secretary to conduct consumer 

testing for the mobile and online versions of the FAFSA to ensure 

they are easily usable and understandable to students and families. 

Amends section 483(f) of the Higher Education Act to require the 

Secretary to make every effort to use data available from the IRS 

to reduce the amount of original data entry by applicants and allow 

more taxpayers to utilize the data retrieval tool. Requires the Secretary to report to Congress every other year on its FAFSA simplification efforts and no less than once every 10 years on the needs 

of limited-English proficient students using the FAFSA. 

Reserves $3 million from funding authorized to be appropriated 

for maintaining the FAFSA to be available to carry out this legislation and specifies no additional funds are authorized to be appropriated by this legislation. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute, are explained in the body of this report. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch. H.R. 5528, the 

Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act, streamlines and 

improves the student aid process by providing for earlier award notification and making the Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA) simpler and more accessible. 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement of whether the 

provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. This 

issue is addressed in the CBO letter. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 5528 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of 

House Rule XXI. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of 

H.R. 5528 are to streamline and improve the student aid process 

by providing for earlier award notification and making the Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) simpler and more accessible. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 5528 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The committee estimates that enacting H.R. 5528 does not specifically direct the completion of any specific rule makings within 

the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

body of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

committee has received the following estimate for H.R. 5528 from 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 5, 2016. 

Hon. JOHN KLINE, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5528, the Simplifying the 

Application for Student Aid Act. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Justin Humphrey. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5528—Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act 

H.R. 5528 would reserve $3 million from funding for the Department of Education to implement changes to the application process 

for federal student aid. Those changes would include developing 

and testing a version of the application for mobile devices and continuing to develop the data retrieval system that allows students 

to pre-populate the online application with data from the Internal 

Revenue Service. 

CBO estimates that implementing the additional administrative 

requirements in H.R. 5528 would cost $3 million over the 2017– 

2021 period; such spending would be subject to the availability of 

appropriated funds. 

Enacting the bill could increase applications for federal student 

aid, which would increase discretionary spending for Pell grants 

and direct spending for student loans and Pell grants; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that 

those effects would be insignificant for each year and over the 

2017–2026 period. Enacting H.R. 5528 would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5528 would not increase net 

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

H.R. 5528 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Justin Humphrey. The 

estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the costs 

that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 5528. However, clause 

3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not 

apply when the committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—STUDENT ASSISTANCE 

PART A—GRANTS TO STUDENTS IN ATTENDANCE AT INSTITUTIONS OF

HIGHER EDUCATION

* * * * * * * 

Subpart 1—Federal Pell Grants 

SEC. 401. FEDERAL PELL GRANTS: AMOUNT AND DETERMINATIONS; 

APPLICATIONS. 

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION.—(1) For 

each fiscal year through fiscal year 2017, the Secretary shall pay 

to each eligible institution such sums as may be necessary to pay 

to each eligible student (defined in accordance with section 484) for 

each academic year during which that student is in attendance at 

an institution of higher education, as an undergraduate, a Federal 

Pell Grant in the amount for which that student is eligible, as determined pursuant to subsection (b). Not less than 85 percent of 

such sums shall be advanced to eligible institutions prior to the 

start of each payment period and shall be based upon an amount 

requested by the institution as needed to pay eligible students until 

such time as the Secretary determines and publishes in the Federal 

Register with an opportunity for comment, an alternative payment 

system that provides payments to institutions in an accurate and 

timely manner, except that this sentence shall not be construed to 

limit the authority of the Secretary to place an institution on a reimbursement system of payment. 

(2) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit the 

Secretary from paying directly to students, in advance of the beginning of the academic term, an amount for which they are eligible, 

in cases where the eligible institution elects not to participate in 

the disbursement system required by paragraph (1). 

(3) Grants made under this subpart shall be known as ‘‘Federal 

Pell Grants’’. 

(b) PURPOSE AND AMOUNT OF GRANTS.—(1) The purpose of this 

subpart is to provide a Federal Pell Grant that in combination with 

reasonable family and student contribution and supplemented by 

the programs authorized under subparts 3 and 4 of this part, will 

meet at least 75 percent of a student’s cost of attendance (as defined in section 472), unless the institution determines that a 

greater amount of assistance would better serve the purposes of 

this section. 

(2) 

(A) The amount of the Federal Pell Grant for a student eligible under this part shall be— 

(i) the maximum Federal Pell Grant, as specified in the 

last enacted appropriation Act applicable to that award 

year, plus 

(ii) the amount of the increase calculated under paragraph (7)(B) for that year, less 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

(iii) an amount equal to the amount determined to be 

the expected family contribution with respect to that student for that year. 

(B) In any case where a student attends an institution of higher 

education on less than a full-time basis (including a student who 

attends an institution of higher education on less than a half-time 

basis) during any academic year, the amount of the Federal Pell 

Grant to which that student is entitled shall be reduced in proportion to the degree to which that student is not so attending on a 

full-time basis, in accordance with a schedule of reductions established by the Secretary for the purposes of this division, computed 

in accordance with this subpart. Such schedule of reductions shall 

be established by regulation and published in the Federal Register 

in accordance with section 482 of this Act. 

(3) No Federal Pell Grant under this subpart shall exceed the difference between the expected family contribution for a student and 

the cost of attendance (as defined in section 472) at the institution 

at which that student is in attendance. If, with respect to any student, it is determined that the amount of a Federal Pell Grant plus 

the amount of the expected family contribution for that student exceeds the cost of attendance for that year, the amount of the Federal Pell Grant shall be reduced until the combination of expected 

family contribution and the amount of the Federal Pell Grant does 

not exceed the cost of attendance at such institution. 

(4) No Federal Pell Grant shall be awarded to a student under 

this subpart if the amount of that grant for that student as determined under this subsection for any academic year is less than ten 

percent of the maximum amount of a Federal Pell Grant award determined under paragraph (2)(A) for such academic year. 

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, the Secretary shall allow the amount of the Federal Pell Grant to be exceeded for students participating in a program of study abroad approved for credit by the institution at which the student is enrolled 

when the reasonable costs of such program are greater than the 

cost of attendance at the student’s home institution, except that the 

amount of such Federal Pell Grant in any fiscal year shall not exceed the maximum amount of a Federal Pell Grant award determined under paragraph (2)(A), for which a student is eligible during such award year. If the preceding sentence applies, the financial aid administrator at the home institution may use the cost of 

the study abroad program, rather than the home institution’s cost, 

to determine the cost of attendance of the student. 

(6) No Federal Pell Grant shall be awarded under this subpart 

to any individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State penal 

institution or who is subject to an involuntary civil commitment 

upon completion of a period of incarceration for a forcible or nonforcible sexual offense (as determined in accordance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program). 

(7) ADDITIONAL FUNDS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated (in addition to any 

other amounts appropriated to carry out this section and 

out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated) the following amounts— (i) $2,030,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

(ii) $2,090,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

(iii) to carry out subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, 

such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2010 

and each subsequent fiscal year to provide the amount 

of increase of the maximum Federal Pell Grant required by clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (B); and 

(iv) to carry out this section— 

(I) $13,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

(II) $13,795,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(III) $7,587,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; 

(IV) $588,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; 

(V) $0 for fiscal year 2015; 

(VI) $0 for fiscal year 2016; 

(VII) $1,574,000,000 for fiscal year 2017; 

(VIII) $1,382,000,000 for fiscal year 2018; 

(IX) $1,409,000,000 for fiscal year 2019; 

(X) $1,430,000,000 for fiscal year 2020; and 

(XI) $1,145,000,000 for fiscal year 2021 and 

each succeeding fiscal year. 

(B) INCREASE IN FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.—The amounts 

made available pursuant to clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be used to increase 

the amount of the maximum Federal Pell Grant for which 

a student shall be eligible during an award year, as specified in the last enacted appropriation Act applicable to 

that award year, by— 

(i) $490 for each of the award years 2008–2009 and 

2009–2010; 

(ii) $690 for each of the award years 2010–2011, 

2011–2012, and 2012–2013; and 

(iii) the amount determined under subparagraph (C) 

for each succeeding award year. 

(C) ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTS.— 

(i) AWARD YEAR 2013–2014.—For award year 2013– 

2014, the amount determined under this subparagraph for purposes of subparagraph (B)(iii) shall be 

equal to— 

(I) $5,550 or the total maximum Federal Pell 

Grant for the preceding award year (as determined under clause (iv)(II)), whichever is greater, 

increased by a percentage equal to the annual adjustment percentage for award year 2013–2014, 

reduced by 

(II) $4,860 or the maximum Federal Pell Grant 

for which a student was eligible for the preceding 

award year, as specified in the last enacted appropriation Act applicable to that year, whichever is 

greater; and 

(III) rounded to the nearest $5. 

(ii) AWARD YEARS 2014–2015 THROUGH 2017–2018.—For 

each of the award years 2014–2015 through 2017– 

2018, the amount determined under this subparagraph for purposes of subparagraph (B)(iii) shall be 

equal to— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

(I) the total maximum Federal Pell Grant for 

the preceding award year (as determined under 

clause (iv)(II)), increased by a percentage equal to 

the annual adjustment percentage for the award 

year for which the amount under this subparagraph is being determined, reduced by (II) $4,860 or the maximum Federal Pell Grant 

for which a student was eligible for the preceding 

award year, as specified in the last enacted appropriation Act applicable to that year, whichever is 

greater; and (III) rounded to the nearest $5. 

(iii) SUBSEQUENT AWARD YEARS.—For award year 

2018–2019 and each subsequent award year, the 

amount determined under this subparagraph for purposes of subparagraph (B)(iii) shall be equal to the 

amount determined under clause (ii) for award year 

2017–2018. 

(iv) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this subparagraph— 

(I) the term ‘‘annual adjustment percentage’’ as 

applied to an award year, is equal to the estimated percentage change in the Consumer Price 

Index (as determined by the Secretary, using the 

definition in section 478(f)) for the most recent 

øcalendar year¿ fiscal year ending prior to the beginning of that award year; and 

(II) the term ‘‘total maximum Federal Pell 

Grant’’ as applied to a preceding award year, is 

equal to the sum of— 

(aa) the maximum Federal Pell Grant for 

which a student is eligible during an award 

year, as specified in the last enacted appropriation Act applicable to that preceding 

award year; and 

(bb) the amount of the increase in the maximum Federal Pell Grant required by this 

paragraph for that preceding award year. 

(D) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND OPERATIONS OTHER- WISE UNAFFECTED.—Except as provided in subparagraphs 

(B) and (C), nothing in this paragraph shall be construed 

to alter the requirements and operations of the Federal 

Pell Grant Program as authorized under this section, or 

authorize the imposition of additional requirements or operations for the determination and allocation of Federal 

Pell Grants under this section. 

(E) RATABLE INCREASES AND DECREASES.—The amounts 

specified in subparagraph (B) shall be ratably increased or 

decreased to the extent that funds available under subparagraph (A) exceed or are less than (respectively) the 

amount required to provide the amounts specified in subparagraph (B). 

(F) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—The amounts made available by subparagraph (A) for any fiscal year shall be available beginning on October 1 of that fiscal year, and shall 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

remain available through September 30 of the succeeding 

fiscal year. 

(c) PERIOD OF ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS.—(1) The period during 

which a student may receive Federal Pell Grants shall be the period required for the completion of the first undergraduate baccalaureate course of study being pursued by that student at the institution at which the student is in attendance except that any period 

during which the student is enrolled in a noncredit or remedial 

course of study as defined in paragraph (2) shall not be counted for 

the purpose of this paragraph. 

(2) Nothing in this section shall exclude from eligibility courses 

of study which are noncredit or remedial in nature (including 

courses in English language instruction) which are determined by 

the institution to be necessary to help the student be prepared for 

the pursuit of a first undergraduate baccalaureate degree or certificate or, in the case of courses in English language instruction, to 

be necessary to enable the student to utilize already existing 

knowledge, training, or skills. Nothing in this section shall exclude 

from eligibility programs of study abroad that are approved for 

credit by the home institution at which the student is enrolled. 

(3) No student is entitled to receive Pell Grant payments concurrently from more than one institution or from the Secretary and an 

institution. 

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary may allow, on 

a case-by-case basis, a student to receive a basic grant if the student— 

(A) is carrying at least one-half the normal full-time work 

load for the course of study the student is pursuing, as determined by the institution of higher education; and 

(B) is enrolled or accepted for enrollment in a 

postbaccalaureate program that does not lead to a graduate degree, and in courses required by a State in order for the student to receive a professional certification or licensing credential that is required for employment as a teacher in an elementary school or secondary school in that State, 

except that this paragraph shall not apply to a student who is enrolled in an institution of higher education that offers a baccalaureate degree in education. 

(5) The period during which a student may receive Federal Pell 

Grants shall not exceed 12 semesters, or the equivalent of 12 semesters, as determined by the Secretary by regulation. Such regulations shall provide, with respect to a student who received a Federal Pell Grant for a term but was enrolled at a fraction of fulltime, that only that same fraction of such semester or equivalent 

shall count towards such duration limits. 

(d) APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS.—(1) The Secretary shall from 

time to time set dates by which students shall file applications for 

Federal Pell Grants under this subpart. 

(2) Each student desiring a Federal Pell Grant for any year shall 

file an application therefor containing such information and assurances as the Secretary may deem necessary to enable the Secretary 

to carry out the functions and responsibilities of this subpart. 

(e) DISTRIBUTION OF GRANTS TO STUDENTS.—Payments under 

this section shall be made in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary for such purpose, in such manner as will 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

best accomplish the purpose of this section. Any disbursement allowed to be made by crediting the student’s account shall be limited to tuition and fees and, in the case of institutionally owned 

housing, room and board. The student may elect to have the institution provide other such goods and services by crediting the student’s account. 

(f) CALCULATION OF ELIGIBILITY.—(1) Each contractor processing 

applications for awards under this subpart (including a central 

processor, if any, designated by the Secretary) shall, in a timely 

manner, furnish to the student financial aid administrator (at each 

institution of higher education which a student awarded a Federal 

Pell Grant under this subpart is attending), as a part of its regular 

output document, the expected family contribution for each such 

student. Each such student financial aid administrator shall— 

(A) examine and assess the data used to calculate the expected family contribution of the student furnished pursuant to 

this subsection; 

(B) recalculate the expected family contribution of the student if there has been a change in circumstances of the student 

or in the data submitted; 

(C) make the award to the student in the correct amount; 

and 

(D) after making such award report the corrected data to 

such contractor and to a central processor (if any) designated 

by the Secretary for a confirmation of the correct computation 

of amount of the expected family contribution for each such 

student. 

(2) Whenever a student receives an award under this subpart 

that, due to recalculation errors by the institution of higher education, is in excess of the amount which the student is entitled to 

receive under this subpart, such institution of higher education 

shall pay to the Secretary the amount of such excess unless such 

excess can be resolved in a subsequent disbursement to the institution. 

(3) Each contractor processing applications for awards under this 

subpart shall for each academic year after academic year 1986– 

1987 prepare and submit a report to the Secretary on the correctness of the computations of amount of the expected family contribution, and on the accuracy of the questions on the application form 

under this subpart for the previous academic year for which the 

contractor is responsible. The Secretary shall transmit the report, 

together with the comments and recommendations of the Secretary, 

to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, the Committee 

on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the authorizing committees. 

(g) INSUFFICIENT APPROPRIATIONS.—If, for any fiscal year, the 

funds appropriated for payments under this subpart are insufficient to satisfy fully all entitlements, as calculated under subsection (b) (but at the maximum grant level specified in such appropriation), the Secretary shall promptly transmit a notice of such 

insufficiency to each House of the Congress, and identify in such 

notice the additional amount that would be required to be appropriated to satisfy fully all entitlements (as so calculated at such 

maximum grant level). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

(h) USE OF EXCESS FUNDS.—(1) If, at the end of a fiscal year, the 

funds available for making payments under this subpart exceed the 

amount necessary to make the payments required under this subpart to eligible students by 15 percent or less, then all of the excess 

funds shall remain available for making payments under this subpart during the next succeeding fiscal year. 

(2) If, at the end of a fiscal year, the funds available for making 

payments under this subpart exceed the amount necessary to make 

the payments required under this subpart to eligible students by 

more than 15 percent, then all of such funds shall remain available 

for making such payments but payments may be made under this 

paragraph only with respect to entitlements for that fiscal year. 

(i) TREATMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND STUDENTS UNDER OTHER

LAWS.—Any institution of higher education which enters into an 

agreement with the Secretary to disburse to students attending 

that institution the amounts those students are eligible to receive 

under this subpart shall not be deemed, by virtue of such agreement, a contractor maintaining a system of records to accomplish 

a function of the Secretary. Recipients of Pell Grants shall not be 

considered to be individual grantees for purposes of subtitle D of 

title V of Public Law 100–690. 

(j) INSTITUTIONAL INELIGIBILITY BASED ON DEFAULT RATES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—No institution of higher education shall be 

an eligible institution for purposes of this subpart if such institution of higher education is ineligible to participate in a loan 

program under part B or D as a result of a final default rate 

determination made by the Secretary under part B or D after 

the final publication of cohort default rates for fiscal year 1996 

or a succeeding fiscal year. 

(2) SANCTIONS SUBJECT TO APPEAL OPPORTUNITY.—No institution may be subject to the terms of this subsection unless the 

institution has had the opportunity to appeal the institution’s 

default rate determination under regulations issued by the 

Secretary for the loan program authorized under part B or D, 

as applicable. This subsection shall not apply to an institution 

that was not participating in the loan program authorized 

under part B or D on the date of enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, unless the institution subsequently participates in the loan programs. 

* * * * * * * 

PART F—NEED ANALYSIS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 480. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this part: 

(a) TOTAL INCOME.—(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph 

(B) and paragraph (2), the term ‘‘total income’’ is equal to adjusted 

gross income plus untaxed income and benefits for the preceding 

tax year minus excludable income (as defined in subsection (e)). 

(B) Notwithstanding section 478(a), the Secretary ømay¿ shall 

provide for the use of data from the second preceding tax year 

when and to the extent necessary to carry out the simplification of 

applications (including simplification for a subset of applications) 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

used for the estimation and determination of financial aid eligibility. Such simplification ømay¿ shall include the sharing of data 

between the Internal Revenue Service and the Department, pursuant to the consent of the taxpayer. 

(2) No portion of any student financial assistance received from 

any program by an individual, no portion of veterans’ education 

benefits received by an individual, no portion of a national service 

educational award or post-service benefit received by an individual 

under title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 

(42 U.S.C. 12511 et seq.), no portion of any tax credit taken under 

section 25A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and no distribution from any qualified education benefit described in subsection 

(f)(3) that is not subject to Federal income tax, shall be included 

as income or assets in the computation of expected family contribution for any program funded in whole or in part under this Act. 

(b) UNTAXED INCOME AND BENEFITS.— 

(1) The term ‘‘untaxed income and benefits’’ means— 

(A) child support received; 

(B) workman’s compensation; 

(C) veteran’s benefits such as death pension, dependency, and indemnity compensation, but excluding veterans’ 

education benefits as defined in subsection (c); 

(D) interest on tax-free bonds; 

(E) housing, food, and other allowances (excluding rent 

subsidies for low-income housing) for military, clergy, and 

others (including cash payments and cash value of benefits), except that the value of on-base military housing or 

the value of basic allowance for housing determined under 

section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, received by 

the parents, in the case of a dependent student, or the student or student’s spouse, in the case of an independent 

student, shall be excluded; 

(F) cash support or any money paid on the student‘s behalf, except, for dependent students, funds provided by the 

student’s parents; 

(G) untaxed portion of pensions; 

(H) payments to individual retirement accounts and 

Keogh accounts excluded from income for Federal income 

tax purposes; and 

(I) any other untaxed income and benefits, such as Black 

Lung Benefits, Refugee Assistance, or railroad retirement 

benefits, or benefits received through participation in employment and training activities under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.). 

(2) The term ‘‘untaxed income and benefits’’ shall not include— 

(A) the amount of additional child tax credit claimed for 

Federal income tax purposes; 

(B) welfare benefits, including assistance under a State 

program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act and aid to dependent children; 

(C) the amount of earned income credit claimed for Federal income tax purposes; 

(D) the amount of credit for Federal tax on special fuels 

claimed for Federal income tax purposes; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

(E) the amount of foreign income excluded for purposes 

of Federal income taxes; or 

(F) untaxed social security benefits. 

(c) VETERAN AND VETERANS’ EDUCATION BENEFITS.—(1) The term 

‘‘veteran’’ means any individual who— 

(A) has engaged in the active duty in the United States 

Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard; and 

(B) was released under a condition other than dishonorable. 

(2) The term ‘‘veterans’ education benefits’’ means veterans’ benefits the student will receive during the award year, including but 

not limited to benefits under the following provisions of law: 

(A) Chapter 103 of title 10, United States Code (Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps). 

(B) Chapter 106A of title 10, United States Code (Educational Assistance for Persons Enlisting for Active Duty). 

(C) Chapter 1606 of title 10, United States Code (Selected 

Reserve Educational Assistance Program). 

(D) Chapter 1607 of title 10, United States Code (Educational Assistance Program for Reserve Component Members 

Supporting Contingency Operations and Certain Other Operations). 

(E) Chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code (All-Volunteer 

Force Educational Assistance Program, also known as the 

‘‘Montgomery GI Bill—active duty’’). 

(F) Chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code (Training and 

Rehabilitation for Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities). 

(G) Chapter 32 of title 38, United States Code (Post-Vietnam 

Era Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program). 

(H) Chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code (Post-9/11 

Educational Assistance). 

(I) Chapter 35 of title 38, United States Code (Survivors’ and 

Dependents’ Educational Assistance Program). 

(J) Section 903 of the Department of Defense Authorization 

Act, 1981 (10 U.S.C. 2141 note) (Educational Assistance Pilot 

Program). 

(K) Section 156(b) of the ‘‘Joint Resolution making further 

continuing appropriations and providing for productive employment for the fiscal year 1983, and for other purposes’’ (42 

U.S.C. 402 note) (Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors, 

also known as ‘‘Quayle benefits’’). 

(L) The provisions of chapter 3 of title 37, United States 

Code, related to subsistence allowances for members of the Reserve Officers Training Corps. 

(d) INDEPENDENT STUDENT.— 

(1) DEFINITION.—The term ‘‘independent’’, when used with 

respect to a student, means any individual who— 

(A) is 24 years of age or older by December 31 of the 

award year; 

(B) is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court, 

or was an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court at 

any time when the individual was 13 years of age or older; 

(C) is, or was immediately prior to attaining the age of 

majority, an emancipated minor or in legal guardianship 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in the 

individual’s State of legal residence; 

(D) is a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United 

States (as defined in subsection (c)(1)) or is currently serving on active duty in the Armed Forces for other than 

training purposes; 

(E) is a graduate or professional student; 

(F) is a married individual; 

(G) has legal dependents other than a spouse; 

(H) has been verified during the school year in which the 

application is submitted as either an unaccompanied youth 

who is a homeless child or youth (as such terms are defined in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act), or as unaccompanied, at risk of homelessness, and self-supporting, by— 

(i) a local educational agency homeless liaison, designated pursuant to section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; 

(ii) the director of a program funded under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act or a designee of the director; 

(iii) the director of a program funded under subtitle 

B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (relating to emergency shelter grants) or a 

designee of the director; or 

(iv) a financial aid administrator; or 

(I) is a student for whom a financial aid administrator 

makes a documented determination of independence by 

reason of other unusual circumstances. 

(2) SIMPLIFYING THE DEPENDENCY OVERRIDE PROCESS.—A financial aid administrator may make a determination of independence under paragraph (1)(I) based upon a documented determination of independence that was previously made by another financial aid administrator under such paragraph in the 

same award year. 

(e) EXCLUDABLE INCOME.—The term ‘‘excludable income’’ 

means— 

(1) any student financial assistance awarded based on need 

as determined in accordance with the provisions of this part, 

including any income earned from work under part C of this 

title; 

(2) any income earned from work under a cooperative education program offered by an institution of higher education; 

(3) any living allowance received by a participant in a program established under the National and Community Service 

Act of 1990; 

(4) child support payments made by the student or parent; 

(5) payments made and services provided under part E of 

title IV of the Social Security Act; and 

(6) special combat pay. 

(f) ASSETS.—(1) The term ‘‘assets’’ means cash on hand, including 

the amount in checking and savings accounts, time deposits, money 

market funds, trusts, stocks, bonds, other securities, mutual funds, 

tax shelters, qualified education benefits (except as provided in 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

paragraph (3)), and the net value of real estate, income producing 

property, and business and farm assets. 

(2) With respect to determinations of need under this title, other 

than for subpart 4 of part A, the term ‘‘assets’’ shall not include 

the net value of— 

(A) the family’s principal place of residence; 

(B) a family farm on which the family resides; or 

(C) a small business with not more than 100 full-time or fulltime equivalent employees (or any part of such a small business) that is owned and controlled by the family. 

(3) A qualified education benefit shall be considered an asset 

of— 

(A) the student if the student is an independent student; 

or 

(B) the parent if the student is a dependent student, regardless of whether the owner of the account is the student or the parent. 

(4) In determining the value of assets in a determination of need 

under this title (other than for subpart 4 of part A), the value of 

a qualified education benefit shall be— 

(A) the refund value of any tuition credits or certificates purchased under a qualified education benefit; and 

(B) in the case of a program in which contributions are made 

to an account that is established for the purpose of meeting the 

qualified higher education expenses of the designated beneficiary of the account, the current balance of such account. 

(5) In this subsection: 

(A) The term ‘‘qualified education benefit’’ means— 

(i) a qualified tuition program (as defined in section 

529(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) or other 

prepaid tuition plan offered by a State; and 

(ii) a Coverdell education savings account (as defined in 

section 530(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). 

(B) The term ‘‘qualified higher education expenses’’ has the 

meaning given the term in section 529(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

(g) NET ASSETS.—The term ‘‘net assets’’ means the current market value at the time of application of the assets (as defined in subsection (f)), minus the outstanding liabilities or indebtedness 

against the assets. 

(h) TREATMENT OF INCOME TAXES PAID TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS.—(1) The tax on income paid to the Governments of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or Palau under the laws applicable to those jurisdictions, or 

the comparable tax paid to the central government of a foreign 

country, shall be treated as Federal income taxes. 

(2) References in this part to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 

Federal income tax forms, and the Internal Revenue Service shall, 

for purposes of the tax described in paragraph (1), be treated as 

references to the corresponding laws, tax forms, and tax collection 

agencies of those jurisdictions, respectively, subject to such adjustments as the Secretary may provide by regulation. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

(i) CURRENT BALANCE.—The term ‘‘current balance of checking 

and savings accounts’’ does not include any funds over which an individual is barred from exercising discretion and control because of 

the actions of any State in declaring a bank emergency due to the 

insolvency of a private deposit insurance fund. 

(j) OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—(1) For purposes of determining a student’s eligibility for funds under this title, estimated 

financial assistance not received under this title shall include all 

scholarships, grants, loans, or other assistance known to the institution at the time the determination of the student’s need is made, 

including national service educational awards or post-service benefits under title I of the National and Community Service Act of 

1990 (42 U.S.C. 12511 et seq.), but excluding veterans’ education 

benefits as defined in subsection (c). 

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a tax credit taken under section 25A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a distribution 

that is not includable in gross income under section 529 of such 

Code, under another prepaid tuition plan offered by a State, or 

under a Coverdell education savings account under section 530 of 

such Code, shall not be treated as estimated financial assistance 

for purposes of section 471(3). 

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) and section 472, assistance 

not received under this title may be excluded from both estimated 

financial assistance and cost of attendance, if that assistance is 

provided by a State and is designated by such State to offset a specific component of the cost of attendance. If that assistance is excluded from either estimated financial assistance or cost of attendance, it shall be excluded from both. 

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), special combat pay shall 

not be treated as estimated financial assistance for purposes of 

section 471(3). 

(k) DEPENDENTS.—(1) Except as otherwise provided, the term 

‘‘dependent of the parent’’ means the student, dependent children 

of the student’s parents, including those children who are deemed 

to be dependent students when applying for aid under this title, 

and other persons who live with and receive more than one-half of 

their support from the parent and will continue to receive more 

than half of their support from the parent during the award year. 

(2) Except as otherwise provided, the term ‘‘dependent of the student’’ means the student’s dependent children and other persons 

(except the student’s spouse) who live with and receive more than 

one-half of their support from the student and will continue to receive more than half of their support from the student during the 

award year. 

(l) FAMILY SIZE.—(1) In determining family size in the case of a 

dependent student— 

(A) if the parents are not divorced or separated, family members include the student’s parents, and the dependents of the 

student’s parents including the student; 

(B) if the parents are divorced or separated, family members 

include the parent whose income is included in computing 

available income and that parent’s dependents, including the 

student; and 

(C) if the parents are divorced and the parent whose income 

is so included is remarried, or if the parent was a widow or 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

widower who has remarried, family members also include, in 

addition to those individuals referred to in subparagraph (B), 

the new spouse and any dependents of the new spouse if that 

spouse’s income is included in determining the parents’ adjusted available income. 

(2) In determining family size in the case of an independent student— 

(A) family members include the student, the student’s 

spouse, and the dependents of the student; and 

(B) if the student is divorced or separated, family members 

do not include the spouse (or ex-spouse), but do include the 

student and the student’s dependents. 

(m) BUSINESS ASSETS.—The term ‘‘business assets’’ means property that is used in the operation of a trade or business, including 

real estate, inventories, buildings, machinery, and other equipment, patents, franchise rights, and copyrights. 

(n) SPECIAL COMBAT PAY.—The term ‘‘special combat pay’’ means 

pay received by a member of the Armed Forces because of exposure 

to a hazardous situation. 

PART G—GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO STUDENT ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 483. FORMS AND REGULATIONS. 

(a) COMMON FINANCIAL AID FORM DEVELOPMENT AND PROC- ESSING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with representatives of agencies and organizations involved in student 

financial assistance, shall produce, distribute, and process free 

of charge common financial reporting forms as described in 

this subsection to be used for application and reapplication to 

determine the need and eligibility of a student for financial assistance under parts A through E (other than subpart 4 of part 

A). The forms shall be made available to applicants in both 

paper and electronic formats and shall be referred to as the 

‘‘Free Application for Federal Student Aid’’ or the ‘‘FAFSA’’. 

The Secretary shall work to make the FAFSA consumer-friendly and to make questions on the FAFSA easy for students and 

families to read and understand, and shall ensure that the 

FAFSA is available in formats accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. 

(2) PAPER FORMAT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop, make 

available, and process— 

(i) a paper version of EZ FAFSA, as described in 

subparagraph (B); and 

(ii) a paper version of the other forms described in 

this subsection, in accordance with subparagraph (C), 

for any applicant who does not meet the requirements 

of or does not wish to use the process described in subparagraph (B). 

(B) EZ FAFSA.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop and 

use, after appropriate field testing, a simplified paper 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

form, to be known as the EZ FAFSA, to be used for 

applicants meeting the requirements of subsection (b) 

or (c) of section 479. 

(ii) REDUCED DATA REQUIREMENTS.—The EZ FAFSA 

shall permit an applicant to submit, for financial assistance purposes, only the data elements required to 

make a determination of whether the applicant meets 

the requirements under subsection (b) or (c) of section 

479. 

(iii) STATE DATA.—The Secretary shall include on 

the EZ FAFSA such data items as may be necessary 

to award State financial assistance, as provided under 

paragraph (5), except that the Secretary shall not include a State’s data if that State does not permit the 

State’s resident applicants to use the EZ FAFSA for 

State assistance. 

(iv) FREE AVAILABILITY AND PROCESSING.—The provisions of paragraph (6) shall apply to the EZ FAFSA, 

and the data collected by means of the EZ FAFSA 

shall be available to institutions of higher education, 

guaranty agencies, and States in accordance with 

paragraph (10). 

(C) PROMOTING THE USE OF ELECTRONIC FAFSA.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall make all efforts to encourage all applicants to utilize the electronic version of the forms described in paragraph (3). 

(ii) MAINTENANCE OF THE FAFSA IN A PRINTABLE

ELECTRONIC FILE.—The Secretary shall maintain a 

version of the paper forms described in subparagraphs 

(A) and (B) in a printable electronic file that is easily 

portable, accessible, and downloadable to students on 

the same website used to provide students with the 

electronic version of the forms described in paragraph 

(3). 

(iii) REQUESTS FOR PRINTED COPY.—The Secretary 

shall provide a printed copy of the full paper version 

of FAFSA upon request. 

(iv) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall 

maintain data, and periodically report to Congress, on 

the impact of the digital divide on students completing 

applications for aid under this title. The Secretary 

shall report on the steps taken to eliminate the digital 

divide and reduce production of the paper form described in subparagraph (A). The Secretary’s report 

shall specifically address the impact of the digital divide on the following student populations: 

(I) Independent students. 

(II) Traditionally underrepresented students. 

(III) Dependent students. 

(3) ELECTRONIC FORMAT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall produce, distribute, and process forms in electronic format to meet the 

requirements of paragraph (1). The Secretary shall develop 

an electronic version of the forms for applicants who do not 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

meet the requirements of subsection (b) or (c) of section 

479. 

(B) SIMPLIFIED APPLICATIONS: FAFSA ON THE WEB.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop and 

use a simplified electronic version of the form to be 

used by applicants meeting the requirements under 

subsection (b) or (c) of section 479. 

(ii) REDUCED DATA REQUIREMENTS.—The simplified 

electronic version of the forms shall permit an applicant to submit, for financial assistance purposes, only 

the data elements required to make a determination of 

whether the applicant meets the requirements under 

subsection (b) or (c) of section 479. 

(iii) USE OF FORMS.—Nothing in this subsection 

shall be construed to prohibit the use of the forms developed by the Secretary pursuant to this paragraph 

by an eligible institution, eligible lender, guaranty 

agency, State grant agency, private computer software 

provider, a consortium thereof, or such other entities 

as the Secretary may designate. 

(C) STATE DATA.—The Secretary shall include on the 

electronic version of the forms such items as may be necessary to determine eligibility for State financial assistance, as provided under paragraph (5), except that the Secretary shall not require an applicant to enter data pursuant to this subparagraph that are required by any State 

other than the applicant’s State of residence. 

(D) AVAILABILITY AND PROCESSING.—The data collected 

by means of the simplified electronic version of the forms 

shall be available to institutions of higher education, guaranty agencies, and States in accordance with paragraph 

(10). 

(E) PRIVACY.—The Secretary shall ensure that data collection under this paragraph complies with section 552a of 

title 5, United States Code, and that any entity using the 

electronic version of the forms developed by the Secretary 

pursuant to this paragraph shall maintain reasonable and 

appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the information, and to protect against security threats, or unauthorized uses or disclosures of the information provided on 

the electronic version of the forms. Data collected by such 

electronic version of the forms shall be used only for the 

application, award, and administration of aid awarded 

under this title, State aid, or aid awarded by eligible institutions or such entities as the Secretary may designate. No 

data collected by such electronic version of the forms shall 

be used for making final aid awards under this title until 

such data have been processed by the Secretary or a contractor or designee of the Secretary, except as may be permitted under this title. 

(F) SIGNATURE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this Act, the Secretary may continue to permit an electronic version of the form under this paragraph to be submitted without a signature, if a signature is subsequently 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

submitted by the applicant or if the applicant uses a personal identification number provided by the Secretary 

under subparagraph (G). 

(G) PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS AUTHORIZED.— The Secretary may continue to assign to an applicant a 

personal identification number— 

(i) to enable the applicant to use such number as a 

signature for purposes of completing an electronic 

version of a form developed under this paragraph; and 

(ii) for any purpose determined by the Secretary to 

enable the Secretary to carry out this title. 

(H) PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IMPROVEMENT.— 

The Secretary shall continue to work with the Commissioner of Social Security to minimize the time required for 

an applicant to obtain a personal identification number 

when applying for aid under this title through an electronic version of a form developed under this paragraph. 

(I) FORMAT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

the enactment of the Simplifying the Application for Student Aid Act, the Secretary shall make the electronic 

version of the forms under this paragraph available 

through a technology tool that can be used on mobile devices. Such technology tool shall, at minimum, enable applicants to— 

(i) save data; and 

(ii) submit their FAFSA to the Secretary through 

such tool. 

(J) CONSUMER TESTING.—In developing and maintaining 

the electronic version of the forms under this paragraph 

and the technology tool for mobile devices under subparagraph (I), the Secretary shall conduct consumer testing 

with appropriate persons to ensure the forms and technology tool are designed to be easily usable and understandable by students and families. Such consumer testing 

shall include— 

(i) current and prospective college students, family 

members of such students, and other individuals with 

expertise in student financial assistance application 

processes; 

(ii) dependent students and independent students 

meeting the requirements under subsection (b) or (c) of 

section 479; and 

(iii) dependent students and independent students 

who do not meet the requirements under subsection (b) 

or (c) of section 479. 

(4) STREAMLINING.— 

(A) STREAMLINED REAPPLICATION PROCESS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall continue to 

streamline reapplication forms and processes for an 

applicant who applies for financial assistance under 

this title in the next succeeding academic year subsequent to an academic year for which such applicant 

applied for financial assistance under this title. 

(ii) UPDATING OF DATA ELEMENTS.—The Secretary 

shall determine, in cooperation with States, instituVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:13 Jul 16, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR678.XXX HR678

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

tions of higher education, agencies, and organizations 

involved in student financial assistance, the data elements that may be transferred from the previous academic year’s application and those data elements that 

shall be updated. 

(iii) REDUCED DATA AUTHORIZED.—Nothing in this 

title shall be construed as limiting the authority of the 

Secretary to reduce the number of data elements required of reapplicants. 

(iv) ZERO FAMILY CONTRIBUTION.—Applicants determined to have a zero family contribution pursuant to 

section 479(c) shall not be required to provide any financial data in a reapplication form, except data that 

are necessary to determine eligibility under such section. 

(B) REDUCTION OF DATA ELEMENTS.— 

(i) REDUCTION ENCOURAGED.—Of the number of data 

elements on the FAFSA used for the 2009–2010 award 

year, the Secretary, in cooperation with representatives of agencies and organizations involved in student 

financial assistance and consistent with efforts under 

subsection (c), shall continue to reduce the number of 

such data elements required to be entered by all applicants, with the goal of reducing such number by 50 

percent. 

(ii) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit a report on 

the process of this reduction to each of the authorizing 

committees by June 30, 2011. 

(5) STATE REQUIREMENTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraphs 

(2)(B)(iii), (3)(B), and (4)(A)(ii), the Secretary shall include 

on the forms developed under this subsection, such Statespecific data items as the Secretary determines are necessary to meet State requirements for need-based State 

aid. Such items shall be selected in consultation with State 

agencies in order to assist in the awarding of State financial assistance in accordance with the terms of this subsection. The number of such data items shall not be less 

than the number included on the form for the 2008–2009 

award year unless a State notifies the Secretary that the 

State no longer requires those data items for the distribution of State need-based aid. 

(B) ANNUAL REVIEW.—The Secretary shall conduct an 

annual review to determine— 

(i) which data items each State requires to award 

need-based State aid; and 

(ii) if the State will permit an applicant to file a 

form described in paragraph (2)(B) or (3)(B). 

(C) FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE.—Beginning with the 

forms developed under paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(B) for the 

award year 2010–2011, the Secretary shall publish on an 

annual basis a notice in the Federal Register requiring 

State agencies to inform the Secretary— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

(i) if the State agency is unable to permit applicants 

to utilize the simplified forms described in paragraphs 

(2)(B) and (3)(B); and 

(ii) of the State-specific nonfinancial data that the 

State agency requires for delivery of State need-based 

financial aid. 

(D) USE OF SIMPLIFIED FORMS ENCOURAGED.—The Secretary shall encourage States to take such steps as are 

necessary to encourage the use of simplified forms under 

this subsection, including those forms described in paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(B), for applicants who meet the requirements of subsection (b) or (c) of section 479. 

(E) CONSEQUENCES IF STATE DOES NOT ACCEPT SIMPLIFIED FORMS.—If a State does not permit an applicant to 

file a form described in paragraph (2)(B) or (3)(B) for purposes of determining eligibility for State need-based financial aid, the Secretary may determine that State-specific 

questions for such State will not be included on a form described in paragraph (2)(B) or (3)(B). If the Secretary 

makes such determination, the Secretary shall advise the 

State of the Secretary’s determination. 

(F) LACK OF STATE RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMA- TION.—If a State does not respond to the Secretary’s request for information under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall— 

(i) permit residents of that State to complete simplified forms under paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(B); and 

(ii) not require any resident of such State to complete any data items previously required by that State 

under this section. 

(G) RESTRICTION.—The Secretary shall, to the extent 

practicable, not require applicants to complete any financial or nonfinancial data items that are not required— 

(i) by the applicant’s State; or 

(ii) by the Secretary. 

(6) CHARGES TO STUDENTS AND PARENTS FOR USE OF FORMS

PROHIBITED.—The need and eligibility of a student for financial 

assistance under parts A through E (other than under subpart 

4 of part A) may be determined only by using a form developed 

by the Secretary under this subsection. Such forms shall be 

produced, distributed, and processed by the Secretary, and no 

parent or student shall be charged a fee by the Secretary, a 

contractor, a third-party servicer or private software provider, 

or any other public or private entity for the collection, processing, or delivery of financial aid through the use of such 

forms. No data collected on a form for which a fee is charged 

shall be used to complete the form prescribed under this section, except that a Federal or State income tax form prepared 

by a paid income tax preparer or preparer service for the primary purpose of filing a Federal or State income tax return 

may be used to complete the form prescribed under this section. 

(7) RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF PIN.—No person, commercial entity, or other entity may request, obtain, or utilize an applicant’s personal identification number assigned under paraVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:13 Jul 16, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR678.XXX HR678

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

graph (3)(G) for purposes of submitting a form developed under 

this subsection on an applicant’s behalf. 

(8) APPLICATION PROCESSING CYCLE.—The Secretary shall enable students to submit forms developed under this subsection 

and initiate the processing of such forms under this subsection, 

as early as practicable prior to January 1 of the student’s 

planned year of enrollment. 

(9) EARLY ESTIMATES.—The Secretary shall continue to— 

(A) permit applicants to enter data in such forms as described in this subsection in the years prior to enrollment 

in order to obtain a non-binding estimate of the applicant’s 

family contribution (as defined in section 473); 

(B) permit applicants to update information submitted 

on forms described in this subsection, without needing to 

re-enter previously submitted information; 

(C) develop a means to inform applicants, in the years 

prior to enrollment, of student aid options for individuals 

in similar financial situations; 

(D) develop a means to provide a clear and conspicuous 

notice that the applicant’s expected family contribution is 

subject to change and may not reflect the final expected 

family contribution used to determine Federal student financial aid award amounts under this title; and 

(E) consult with representatives of States, institutions of 

higher education, and other individuals with experience or 

expertise in student financial assistance application processes in making updates to forms used to provide early estimates under this paragraph. 

(10) DISTRIBUTION OF DATA.—Institutions of higher education, guaranty agencies, and States shall receive, without 

charge, the data collected by the Secretary using a form developed under this subsection for the purposes of processing loan 

applications and determining need and eligibility for institutional and State financial aid awards. Entities designated by 

institutions of higher education, guaranty agencies, or States 

to receive such data shall be subject to all the requirements of 

this section, unless such requirements are waived by the Secretary. 

(11) THIRD PARTY SERVICERS AND PRIVATE SOFTWARE PROVIDERS.—To the extent practicable and in a timely manner, the 

Secretary shall provide, to private organizations and consortia 

that develop software used by institutions of higher education 

for the administration of funds under this title, all the necessary specifications that the organizations and consortia must 

meet for the software the organizations and consortia develop, 

produce, and distribute (including any diskette, modem, or network communications) to be so used. The specifications shall 

contain record layouts for required data. The Secretary shall 

develop in advance of each processing cycle an annual schedule 

for providing such specifications. The Secretary, to the extent 

practicable, shall use multiple means of providing such specifications, including conferences and other meetings, outreach, 

and technical support mechanisms (such as training and printed reference materials). The Secretary shall, from time to time, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

solicit from such organizations and consortia means of improving the support provided by the Secretary. 

(12) PARENT’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND BIRTH DATE.— 

The Secretary is authorized to include space on the forms developed under this subsection for the social security number 

and birth date of parents of dependent students seeking financial assistance under this title. 

(b) INFORMATION TO COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS.—Copies of all 

rules, regulations, guidelines, instructions, and application forms 

published or promulgated pursuant to this title shall be provided 

to the authorizing committees at least 45 days prior to their effective date. 

(c) TOLL-FREE INFORMATION.—The Secretary shall contract for, 

or establish, and publicize a toll-free telephone service to provide 

timely and accurate information to the general public. The information provided shall include specific instructions on completing the 

application form for assistance under this title. Such service shall 

also include a service accessible by telecommunications devices for 

the deaf (TDD’s) and shall, in addition to the services provided for 

in the previous sentence, refer such students to the national clearinghouse on postsecondary education or other appropriate provider 

of technical assistance and information on postsecondary educational services for individuals with disabilities, including the National Technical Assistance Center under section 777. The Secretary shall continue to implement, to the extent practicable, a tollfree telephone based system to permit applicants who meet the requirements of subsection (b) or (c) of section 479 to submit an application over such system. 

(d) ASSISTANCE IN PREPARATION OF FINANCIAL AID APPLICATION.— 

(1) PREPARATION AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, an applicant may use a preparer for consultative or preparation services for the completion of a form developed under subsection (a) if the preparer satisfies the requirements of this subsection. 

(2) PREPARER IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED.—If an applicant 

uses a preparer for consultative or preparation services for the 

completion of a form developed under subsection (a), and for 

which a fee is charged, the preparer shall— 

(A) include, at the time the form is submitted to the Department, the name, address or employer’s address, social 

security number or employer identification number, and 

organizational affiliation of the preparer on the applicant’s 

form; and 

(B) be subject to the same penalties as an applicant for 

purposely giving false or misleading information in the application. 

(3) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.—A preparer that provides 

consultative or preparation services pursuant to this subsection 

shall— 

(A) clearly inform each individual upon initial contact, 

including contact through the Internet or by telephone, 

that the FAFSA and EZ FAFSA are free forms that may 

be completed without professional assistance via paper or 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

electronic version of the forms that are provided by the 

Secretary; 

(B) include in any advertising clear and conspicuous information that the FAFSA and EZ FAFSA are free forms 

that may be completed without professional assistance via 

paper or electronic version of the forms that are provided 

by the Secretary; 

(C) if advertising or providing any information on a 

website, or if providing services through a website, include 

on the website a link to the website that provides the electronic version of the forms developed under subsection (a); 

and 

(D) not produce, use, or disseminate any other form for 

the purpose of applying for Federal student financial aid 

other than the form developed by the Secretary under subsection (a). 

(4) SPECIAL RULE.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 

limit preparers of the forms required under this title that meet 

the requirements of this subsection from collecting source information from a student or parent, including Internal Revenue Service tax forms, in providing consultative and preparation services in completing the forms. 

(e) EARLY APPLICATION AND ESTIMATED AWARD DEMONSTRATION

PROGRAM.— (1) PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES.—The purpose of the demonstration program under this subsection is to measure the 

benefits, in terms of student aspirations and plans to attend an 

institution of higher education, and any adverse effects, in 

terms of program costs, integrity, distribution, and delivery of 

aid under this title, of implementing an early application system for all dependent students that allows dependent students 

to apply for financial aid using information from two years 

prior to the year of enrollment. Additional objectives associated 

with implementation of the demonstration program are the following: 

(A) To measure the feasibility of enabling dependent students to apply for Federal, State, and institutional financial aid in their junior year of secondary school, using information from two years prior to the year of enrollment, 

by completing any of the forms under this subsection. 

(B) To identify whether receiving final financial aid 

award estimates not later than the fall of the senior year 

of secondary school provides students with additional time 

to compete for the limited resources available for State and 

institutional financial aid and positively impacts the college aspirations and plans of these students. 

(C) To measure the impact of using income information 

from the years prior to enrollment on— 

(i) eligibility for financial aid under this title and for 

other State and institutional aid; and 

(ii) the cost of financial aid programs under this 

title. 

(D) To effectively evaluate the benefits and adverse effects of the demonstration program on program costs, integrity, distribution, and delivery of financial aid. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

(2) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—Not later than two years after 

the date of enactment of the Higher Education Opportunity 

Act, the Secretary shall implement an early application demonstration program enabling dependent students who wish to 

participate in the program— 

(A) to complete an application under this subsection during the academic year that is two years prior to the year 

such students plan to enroll in an institution of higher 

education; and 

(B) based on the application described in subparagraph 

(A), to obtain, not later than one year prior to the year of 

the students’ planned enrollment, information on eligibility 

for Federal Pell Grants, Federal student loans under this 

title, and State and institutional financial aid for the student’s first year of enrollment in the institution of higher 

education. 

(3) EARLY APPLICATION AND ESTIMATED AWARD.—For all dependent students selected for participation in the demonstration program who submit a completed FAFSA, or, as appropriate, an EZ FAFSA, two years prior to the year such students plan to enroll in an institution of higher education, the 

Secretary shall, not later than one year prior to the year of 

such planned enrollment— 

(A) provide each student who completes an early application with an estimated determination of such student’s— 

(i) expected family contribution for the first year of 

the student’s enrollment in an institution of higher 

education; and 

(ii) Federal Pell Grant award for the first such year, 

based on the Federal Pell Grant amount, determined 

under section 401(b)(2)(A), for which a student is eligible at the time of application; and 

(B) remind the students of the need to update the students’ information during the calendar year of enrollment 

using the expedited reapplication process provided for in 

subsection (a)(4)(A). 

(4) PARTICIPANTS.—The Secretary shall include as participants in the demonstration program— 

(A) States selected through the application process described in paragraph (5); 

(B) institutions of higher education within the selected 

States that are interested in participating in the demonstration program, and that can make estimates or commitments of institutional student financial aid, as appropriate, to students the year before the students’ planned 

enrollment date; and 

(C) secondary schools within the selected States that are 

interested in participating in the demonstration program, 

and that can commit resources to— 

(i) advertising the availability of the program; 

(ii) identifying students who might be interested in 

participating in the program; 

(iii) encouraging such students to apply; and 

(iv) participating in the evaluation of the program. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

(5) APPLICATIONS.—Each State that is interested in participating in the demonstration program shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and containing such information as the Secretary shall require. The 

application shall include— 

(A) information on the amount of the State’s need-based 

student financial assistance available, and the eligibility 

criteria for receiving such assistance; 

(B) a commitment to make, not later than the year before the dependent students participating in the demonstration program plan to enroll in an institution of higher education, an estimate of the award of State financial 

aid to such dependent students; 

(C) a plan for recruiting institutions of higher education 

and secondary schools with different demographic characteristics to participate in the program; 

(D) a plan for selecting institutions of higher education 

and secondary schools to participate in the program that— 

(i) demonstrate a commitment to encouraging students to submit a FAFSA, or, as appropriate, an EZ 

FAFSA, two years before the students’ planned date of 

enrollment in an institution of higher education; 

(ii) serve different populations of students; 

(iii) in the case of institutions of higher education— 

(I) to the extent possible, are of varying types 

and sectors; and 

(II) commit to making, not later than the year 

prior to the year that dependent students participating in the demonstration program plan to enroll in the institution— 

(aa) estimated institutional awards to participating dependent students; and 

(bb) estimated grants or other financial aid 

available under this title (including supplemental grants under subpart 3 of part A), for 

all participating dependent students, along 

with information on State awards, as provided 

to the institution by the State; 

(E) a commitment to participate in the evaluation conducted by the Secretary; and 

(F) such other information as the Secretary may require. 

(6) SPECIAL PROVISIONS.— 

(A) DISCRETION OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID ADMINISTRATORS.—A financial aid administrator at an institution of 

higher education participating in a demonstration program 

under this subsection may use the discretion provided 

under section 479A as necessary for students participating 

in the demonstration program. 

(B) WAIVERS.—The Secretary is authorized to waive, for 

an institution of higher education participating in the 

demonstration program, any requirements under this title, 

or regulations prescribed under this title, that will make 

the demonstration program unworkable, except that the 

Secretary shall not waive any provisions with respect to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

the maximum award amounts for grants and loans under 

this title. 

(7) OUTREACH.—The Secretary shall make appropriate efforts to notify States of the demonstration program under this 

subsection. Upon determination of participating States, the 

Secretary shall continue to make efforts to notify institutions 

of higher education and dependent students within participating States of the opportunity to participate in the demonstration program and of the participation requirements. 

(8) EVALUATION.—The Secretary shall conduct a rigorous 

evaluation of the demonstration program to measure the program’s benefits and adverse effects, as the benefits and effects 

relate to the purpose and objectives of the program described 

in paragraph (1). In conducting the evaluation, the Secretary 

shall— 

(A) determine whether receiving financial aid estimates 

one year prior to the year in which the student plans to 

enroll in an institution of higher education, has a positive 

impact on the higher education aspirations and plans of 

such student; 

(B) measure the extent to which using a student’s income information from the year that is two years prior to 

the student’s planned enrollment date had an impact on 

the ability of States and institutions of higher education to 

make financial aid awards and commitments; 

(C) determine what operational changes are required to 

implement the program on a larger scale; 

(D) identify any changes to Federal law that are necessary to implement the program on a permanent basis; 

(E) identify the benefits and adverse effects of providing 

early estimates on program costs, program operations, program integrity, award amounts, distribution, and delivery 

of aid; and 

(F) examine the extent to which estimated awards differ 

from actual awards made to students participating in the 

program. 

(9) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall consult, as appropriate, with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance established under section 491 on the design, implementation, and evaluation of the demonstration program. 

ø(f) REDUCTION OF INCOME AND ASSET INFORMATION TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR STUDENT FINANCIAL AID.— 

ø(1) CONTINUATION OF CURRENT FAFSA SIMPLIFICATION EFFORTS.—The Secretary shall continue to examine— 

ø(A) how the Internal Revenue Service can provide to 

the Secretary income and other data needed to compute an 

expected family contribution for taxpayers and dependents 

of taxpayers, and when in the application cycle the data 

can be made available; 

ø(B) whether data provided by the Internal Revenue 

Service can be used to— 

ø(i) prepopulate the electronic version of the FAFSA 

with student and parent taxpayer data; or 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

ø(ii) generate an expected family contribution without additional action on the part of the student and 

taxpayer; and 

ø(C) whether the data elements collected on the FAFSA 

that are needed to determine eligibility for student aid, or 

to administer the Federal student financial aid programs 

under this title, but are not needed to compute an expected 

family contribution, such as information regarding the student’s citizenship or permanent residency status, registration for selective service, or driver’s license number, can be 

reduced without adverse effects. 

ø(2) REPORT ON FAFSA SIMPLIFICATION EFFORTS TO DATE.— 

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, the Secretary shall provide a 

written report to the authorizing committees on the work the 

Department has done with the Secretary of the Treasury regarding— 

ø(A) how the expected family contribution of a student 

can be calculated using substantially less income and asset 

information than was used on March 31, 2008; 

ø(B) the extent to which the reduced income and asset 

information will result in a redistribution of Federal 

grants and subsidized loans under this title, State aid, or 

institutional aid, or in a change in the composition of the 

group of recipients of such aid, and the amount of such redistribution; 

ø(C) how the alternative approaches for calculating the 

expected family contribution will— 

ø(i) rely mainly, in the case of students and parents 

who file income tax returns, on information available 

on the 1040, 1040EZ, and 1040A; and 

ø(ii) include formulas for adjusting income or asset 

information to produce similar results to the existing 

approach with less data; 

ø(D) how the Internal Revenue Service can provide to 

the Secretary of Education income and other data needed 

to compute an expected family contribution for taxpayers 

and dependents of taxpayers, and when in the application 

cycle the data can be made available; 

ø(E) whether data provided by the Internal Revenue 

Service can be used to— 

ø(i) prepopulate the electronic version of the FAFSA 

with student and parent taxpayer data; or 

ø(ii) generate an expected family contribution without additional action on the part of the student and 

taxpayer; 

ø(F) the extent to which the use of income data from two 

years prior to a student’s planned enrollment date will 

change the expected family contribution computed in accordance with part F, and potential adjustments to the 

need analysis formula that will minimize the change; and 

ø(G) the extent to which the data elements collected on 

the FAFSA on March 31, 2008, that are needed to determine eligibility for student aid or to administer the Federal student financial aid programs, but are not needed to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

compute an expected family contribution, such as information regarding the student’s citizenship or permanent residency status, registration for selective service, or driver’s 

license number, can be reduced without adverse effects. 

ø(3) STUDY.— ø(A) FORMATION OF STUDY GROUP.—Not later than 90 

days after the date of enactment of the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act, the Comptroller General shall convene a 

study group the membership of which shall include the 

Secretary of Education, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, representatives 

of institutions of higher education with expertise in Federal and State financial aid assistance, State chief executive officers of higher education with a demonstrated commitment to simplifying the FAFSA, and such other individuals as the Comptroller General and the Secretary of Education may designate. 

ø(B) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Comptroller General, in 

consultation with the study group convened under subparagraph (A) shall— 

ø(i) review and build on the work of the Secretary 

of Education and the Secretary of the Treasury, and 

individuals with expertise in analysis of financial 

need, to assess alternative approaches for calculating 

the expected family contribution under the statutory 

need analysis formula in effect on the day before the 

date of enactment of the Higher Education Opportunity Act and under a new calculation that will use 

substantially less income and asset information than 

was used for the 2008–2009 FAFSA; 

ø(ii) conduct an additional analysis if necessary; and 

ø(iii) make recommendations to the authorizing committees. 

ø(C) OBJECTIVES OF STUDY.—The objectives of the study 

required under subparagraph (B) are— 

ø(i) to determine methods to shorten the FAFSA and 

make the FAFSA easier and less time-consuming to 

complete, thereby increasing higher education access 

for low-income students; 

ø(ii) to identify changes to the statutory need analysis formula that will be necessary to reduce the 

amount of financial information students and families 

need to provide to receive a determination of eligibility 

for student financial aid without causing significant 

redistribution of Federal grants and subsidized loans 

under this title; and 

ø(iii) to review State and institutional needs and 

uses for data collected on the FAFSA, and to determine the best means of addressing such needs in the 

case of modification of the FAFSA as described in 

clause (i), or modification of the need analysis formula 

as described in clause (ii). 

ø(D) REQUIRED SUBJECTS OF STUDY.—The study required 

under subparagraph (B) shall examine— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

ø(i) with respect to simplification of the financial aid 

application process using the statutory requirements 

for need analysis— 

ø(I) additional steps that can be taken to simplify the financial aid application process for students who (or, in the case of dependent students, 

whose parents) are not required to file a Federal 

income tax return for the prior taxable year; 

ø(II) information on State use of information 

provided on the FAFSA, including— 

ø(aa) whether a State uses, as of the time 

of the study, or can use, a student’s expected 

family contribution based on data from two 

years prior to the student’s planned enrollment date; 

ø(bb) the extent to which States and institutions will accept the data provided by the Internal Revenue Service to prepopulate the 

electronic version of the FAFSA to determine 

the distribution of State and institutional student financial aid funds; 

ø(cc) what data are used by States, as of the 

time of the study, to determine eligibility for 

State student financial aid, and whether the 

data are used for merit- or need-based aid; 

ø(dd) whether State data are required by 

State law, State regulations, or policy directives; and 

ø(ee) the extent to which any State-specific 

information requirements can be met by completion of a State application linked to the 

electronic version of the FAFSA; and 

ø(III) information on institutional needs, including the extent to which institutions of higher education are already using supplemental forms to 

collect additional data from students and their 

families to determine eligibility for institutional 

funds; and 

ø(ii) ways to reduce the amount of financial information students and families need to provide to receive 

a determination of eligibility for student financial aid, 

taking into account— 

ø(I) the amount of redistribution of Federal 

grants and subsidized loans under this title 

caused by such a reduction, and the benefits to be 

gained by having an application process that will 

be easier for students and their families; 

ø(II) students and families who do not file income tax returns; 

ø(III) the extent to which the full array of income and asset information collected on the 

FAFSA, as of the time of the study, plays an important role in the awarding of need-based State 

financial aid, and whether the State can use an 

expected family contribution generated by the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

FAFSA, instead of income and asset information 

or a calculation with reduced data elements, to 

support determinations of eligibility for such State 

aid programs and, if not, what additional information will be needed or what changes to the FAFSA 

will be required; and 

ø(IV) information on institutional needs, including the extent to which institutions of higher education are already using supplemental forms to 

collect additional data from students and their 

families to determine eligibility for institutional 

funds; and 

ø(V) changes to this Act or other laws that will 

be required to implement a modified need analysis 

system. 

ø(4) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall consult with the 

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance established under section 491 as appropriate in carrying out this 

subsection. 

ø(5) REPORTS.— 

ø(A) REPORTS ON STUDY.—The Secretary shall prepare 

and submit to the authorizing committees— 

ø(i) not later than one year after the date of enactment of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, an interim report on the progress of the study required 

under paragraph (3) that includes any preliminary 

recommendations by the study group established 

under such paragraph; and 

ø(ii) not later than two years after the date of enactment of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, a final 

report on the results of the study required under paragraph (3) that includes recommendations by the study 

group established under such paragraph. 

ø(B) REPORTS ON FAFSA SIMPLIFICATION EFFORTS.—The 

Secretary shall report to the authorizing committees, from 

time to time, on the progress of the simplification efforts 

under this subsection.¿ 

(f) USE OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DATA RETRIEVAL TOOL

TO POPULATE FAFSA.— 

(1) SIMPLIFICATION EFFORTS.—The Secretary shall— 

(A) make every effort to use data available from the Internal Revenue Service to reduce the amount of original data 

entry by applicants and strengthen the reliability of data 

used to calculate expected family contributions, including 

through the use of technology to— 

(i) automatically populate the electronic version of 

the forms under this paragraph with data available 

from the Internal Revenue Service; and 

(ii) direct an applicant to appropriate questions on 

such forms based on the applicant’s answers to previous questions; and 

(B) allow single taxpayers, married taxpayers filing jointly, and married taxpayers filing separately to utilize the 

data retrieval tool to its full capacity. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

(2) USE OF TAX RETURN IN APPLICATION PROCESS.—The Secretary shall continue to examine whether data provided by the 

Internal Revenue Service can be used to generate an expected 

family contribution without additional action on the part of the 

student and taxpayer. 

(3) REPORTS ON FAFSA SIMPLIFICATION EFFORTS.—Not less 

than once every other year, the Secretary shall report to the authorizing committees on the progress of the simplification efforts 

under this subsection. 

(4) REPORTS ON FAFSA ACCESS.—Not less than once every 10 

years, the Secretary shall report to the authorizing committees 

on the needs of limited English proficient students using the 

FAFSA. 

(g) ADDRESSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE.—The Secretary shall utilize 

savings accrued by moving more applicants to the electronic 

version of the forms described in subsection (a)(3) to improve access 

to the electronic version of the forms described in such subsection 

for applicants meeting the requirements of subsection (b) or (c) of 

section 479. 

(h) ADJUSTMENTS.—The Secretary shall disclose, on the form notifying a student of the student’s expected family contribution, that 

the student may, on a case-by-case basis, qualify for an adjustment 

under section 479A to the cost of attendance or the values of the 

data items required to calculate the expected contribution for the 

student or parent. Such disclosure shall specify— 

(1) the special circumstances under which a student or family member may qualify for such adjustment; and 

(2) additional information regarding the steps a student or 

family member may take in order to seek an adjustment under 

section 479A. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING