PHIT Act of 2021

Mr. President, for two Congresses, Angus King and I have introduced bipartisan legislation to streamline and simplify student loan repayment programs. Our proposal would make the current, overly- complicated loan repayment programs easier to navigate and more predictable for both borrowers and the Federal Government.

Today, students are asked to choose between nine different loan repayment plans, each with different eligibility and income requirements. The uncertainty created by too many competing options has made it nearly impossible for the Federal Government to accurately fund the program, leading to billions of dollars in budget shortfalls.

Just last year, the Office of Management and the Budget said the Direct Loan Program would cost $64 billion more than previously anticipated in just a single fiscal year prior to the COVID-19 emergency. The COVID-19 emergency caused $39 billion in additional unplanned for costs to the program through congressional and administrative actions. This is unsustainable, and it is unnecessary.

We need to make it easier for student borrowers to find the best repayment plan that works for them, and we need to make it easier for the Federal Government to accurately account for a program on which so many students depend. The REPAY Act would do just that, and I am here again to introduce this commonsense proposal to help all new borrowers, which represents approximately 20 percent of Federal student loan borrowers each year. This bill has been previously supported by a number of cosponsors, including Senators Warner, Rubio, Collins, Capito, Shaheen, Carper, Wicker, Manchin, and Portman.

The REPAY Act would simplify this process by establishing just two, easy-to-understand loan repayment plans.

The first is a fixed 10-year payment option, like most borrowers pay now.

The second is a simplified income-driven repayment plan, which takes into consideration how much a student borrowed verses how much they earn.

First, this plan provides forgiveness of all outstanding debt after the borrower fulfills their obligation to pay monthly on a 20-year term if the student borrowed less than the maximum undergraduate borrowing limit of $57,500 and pay monthly on a 25-year term if the student borrowed more than the undergraduate limit.

Second, this plan provides reasonable expectations for monthly payments. Very low-income borrowers would have a zero dollar payment. No payments are required until a borrower earns above 150 percent of the poverty line, which adjusts by family size and income. Modest- income borrowers would have a very low payment equal to 10 percent of the earnings they make above 150 percent of the poverty line. Higher income borrowers would pay 10 percent on the first $25,000 of discretionary income they earned and 15 percent on any income above that.

A single income-driven repayment plan assures students that there is a reasonable repayment plan available based on their individual earnings. It means students won't be unnecessarily discouraged from pursuing careers that may pay less but for which they have a passion, such as education or social work.

As I said, this is not the first time Senator King and I have introduced this legislation, but there is added urgency this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic and because of the reckless proposals to simply transfer hundreds of billions in debt from individual borrowers to the Federal Government.

Last year, as the Nation struggled to combat coronavirus, Congress paused loan repayments for all borrowers through September 30, 2020. The Trump and Biden administrations then extended that pause through September 30, 2021. No borrower has been required to make a student loan payment for the last 12 months. As the American economy recovers, however, we cannot continue to pause payments indefinitely or, even worse, erase large swaths of loan balances, regardless of an individual's economic circumstance. Instead, Congress must put forward a commonsense plan that reflects the interests of student loan borrowers and American taxpayers.

I have cautioned Secretary Cardona against pursuing a dangerous proposal to simply forgive student debt through administrative action, an action which neither complies with the Federal Claims Collection Act, the Higher Education Act, or the related regulations. Not only do I think this isn't a legal idea, I don't believe it is a wise one, either. It is reckless policymaking to forgive massive amounts of existing student debt and doing so will create a profound moral hazard. What happens after existing debt is forgiven? Will colleges magically lower their tuition and fees, so no student ever needs to borrow again, or will colleges continue to charge for their services, and will students load right back up on exorbitant debt that 5, 10, or 30 years from now the American taxpayer will be asked to write off once again? This is an unserious gambit that doesn't come close to addressing the real drivers of student debt.

Rather than a flash-in-the-pan trick, I propose that we take up a durable policy solution, which includes the commonsense, bipartisan legislation that Senator Angus King and I are advocating. Our proposal helps ensure student loan repayment programs are understandable and workable for future students who need them. As ranking member of the Education Committee, I will work with our committee's chairman to move this legislation forward. I hope that we will find a willing partner in the White House and at the Department of Education.

Mr. President. In today's economy, ensuring access to a variety of postsecondary programs has become even more critical in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the end of 2020, more than 10 million Americans were unemployed, and 3. 7 million of those individuals have suffered permanent job loss. These workers will need access to postsecondary education and training to reskill and reenter the workforce. Notably, according to a poll conducted by Strada in June of 2020, Americans strongly prefer nondegree and skills training programs over degree programs as a way to access postsecondary credentials during and post-pandemic.

However, when it comes to higher education, Federal policies are not doing enough to support the demands of the changing labor market. Many of the individuals who enter into skills and job training programs are at the lowest end of the socioeconomic level, yet simply because their goal is to enter the workforce rather than obtain a degree, they are denied access Federal financial aid. The Federal Pell Grant Program-- needs-based grants for low-income and king students--can only be used to offset the cost of programs that are over 600 clock hours or

at least 15 weeks in length. While many short-term programs provide high-quality skills training that employers need and recognize, they are not Pell-eligible.

Since the creation of the Pell grant, the profile of today's students has evolved along with the types of postsecondary education and training programs students look to enroll in. Today, 3 7 percent of all postsecondary students are 25 years of age or older, 68 percent work full-or-part-time while attending school and 26 percent have children or dependents. While many of these students enroll in longer-term degree programs, a significant number seek out shorter-term, workforce- oriented training programs that lead to in-demand jobs or stack to longer-term education pathways. These short-term programs allow them to advance their education and skills in a manner that works with their life-situation of working and caring for children and other dependents. Without such programs, many of these students cannot devote the four plus years that many part-time students must spend to get an associates degree, or six plus years to earn a four year degree. Our federal higher education policy must be modernized to meet the needs of students and employers. According to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, shorter-term educational investments pay off--the average postsecondary certificate holder has 30 percent higher lifetime earnings than individuals with only a high school diploma.

Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague, Senator Portman, the Jumpstart Our Businesses by Supporting Students or JOBS Act. The JOBS Act would close extend Pell Grant eligibility to high-quality, short-term job training programs offered at community colleges and other public institutions, so workers can afford the instruction they need to be successful in today's job market. Under the legislation, Pell-eligible job training programs are defined as those providing at least 150 clock hours of instruction time over a minimum of 8 weeks. Eligible job training programs must also provide students with licenses, certifications, or credentials that meet the hiring requirements of multiple employers in the field for which the job training is offered.

The JOBS Act also ensures that students enrolling in Pell-eligible short-term programs are earning high-quality postsecondary credentials by requiring that the credentials meet the standards of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, are recognized by industry or sector partnerships, and align with the skill needs of industries in States or local economies. Job training programs under this Act must also be evaluated by an accreditor and the State workforce board for quality and outcomes. The Virginia Community College System has identified approximately 50 programs that would benefit from the JOBS Act including in the fields of manufacturing, maritime, architecture/ construction, energy, health care, information technology, transportation, and business management and administration.

The JOBS Act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help workers and employers succeed in today's economy. As Congress works to help Americans recover from pandemic job losses, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in advocating for Pell Grants to be made available to individuals enrolling in high-quality, short-term training programs that lead to industry-recognized credentials and good paying jobs.

Mr. President, nationally, psychostimulant overdose deaths, including methamphetamine-related deaths, increased by nearly 42% between July 2019 and July 2020. This increase is second only to synthetic opioids, a category which includes fentanyl.

My home State of California has been particularly hard hit. Between 2014 and 2019, methamphetamine-caused deaths in San Diego increased from 262 to 546, a stunning 108 percent increase in just five years. Similarly, in Los Angeles County, methamphetamine was involved in 44 percent of all drug overdose deaths in 2018.

Unfortunately, these figures are not unique to California, as other localities throughout the country are also seeing increases.

That is why I am introducing the Methamphetamine Response Act, which was passed by the Senate unanimously during the last session of Congress, with my colleague, Senator Grassley.

This bill does two things. First, it declares methamphetamine an emerging drug threat. Second, it requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to develop and implement a national plan that is specific to methamphetamine, in accordance the ONDCP Reauthorization, which I was proud to co-author, and which was enacted in 2018 as part of the SUPPORT Act.

This plan must include: An assesment of the methamphetamine threat, including the current availability of, and demand for, the drug, and the effectiveness of evidence-based prevention and treatment programs, as well as law enforcement programs;

Short- and long-term goals focused on supply and demand reduction and the expansion of prevention and treatment programs;

Performance measures related to the plan's goals; and

The level of funding needed to implement the plan, including an assessment of whether available funding can be reprogrammed or transferred, or whether additional funds are needed.

It is clear that methamphetamine is re-emerging as a major drug threat to our Nation:

Data shows that methamphetamine use is no longer limited to Mid-West and Western States, but is increasingly prevalent in Northeastern States.

Between 2018 and 2019, psychostimulant overdose deaths, including methamphetamine deaths, increased in 27 of the 38 States that provide drug-specific data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This amounts to a 27 percent increase nationally.

Methamphetamine continues to be highly potent, pure, and cheap. By the end of 2019, its availability and use had both increased.

Between 2016 and 2019, the number of individuals aged 12 and older with a methamphetamine use disorder increased from 684,000 to one million. That's a 46 percent increase in just three years.

Emergency room admissions for suspected stimulant overdoses, including methamphetamine, increased by 23 percent between January 2019 and 2020. These increases occurred in 36 States and the District of Colombia.

Two of the largest methamphetamine seizures on record occurred in 2019: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized 3,000 pounds of methamphetamine at the port of Otay Mesa while the Drug Enforcement Administration seized 2,224 pounds of methamphetamine in Riverside County. Both of these seizures were in California.

Given the increasing size of these seizures, it is not surprising that in the first five months of fiscal year 2021, CBP has already seized more than 75,000 pounds of methamphetamine.

In a one year span, psychostimulants, including methamphetamine, killed more than 21,000 Americans. Absent immediate action and a comprehensive plan, these fatalities will continue to increase.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and in the House to see Methamphetamine Response Act enacted.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce School Food Modernization Act to assist our schools in updating outdated kitchen equipment, allowing them to provide healthier meals to students. I also thank my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Smith, for cosponsoring this bill.

School meals play a vital role in the lives of so many of our children. As one school nutrition director from Maine recently told me, school meals are the ``foundation for student success.'' Nearly 100,000 schools participate in the National School Lunch program, serving 30 million children each day, helping to prevent hunger. Many children consume up to half their daily caloric intake at school, and some get their most nutritious meals of the day at school instead of at home. Because school meals are a significant source of daily nutrition for so many, we must consistently aim to improve the program to best serve students.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the importance of school meals for many families. Across the country, schools and nutrition programs were adapted to remote and hybrid learning models during the pandemic. Nutrition programs in Maine and other states have tirelessly continued to support the nutritional needs of students despite school closures, with many schools offering as many as four or five meal delivery options to ensure families can continue to access food seven days a week. I met recently with school nutrition directors from Maine who said lack of equipment, including access to cold storage, has forced them to be even more creative in continuing to serve children across Maine during COVID-19. Many schools are using stoves from the 1960s and others lack adequate storage facilities to store the large amount of food needed to provide multi-day bulk meal bags for children and families who are learning remotely or attending school only part-time.

The fact is schools built decades ago often lack the equipment and infrastructure necessary to do more than reheat and serve one or two meal options each day. Even before the pandemic, nearly 90 percent of schools needed at least one piece of updated school kitchen equipment. It is estimated that Maine schools alone would need $58.8 million for equipment infrastructure upgrades needed to serve healthy meals to all of our students. The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, on which I serve, has consistently recognized this need and appropriated $30 million for School Equipment Assistance Grants last year. The School Food Modernization Act would codify and improve this successful grant program to better meet the growing need nationwide.

The School Food Modernization Act seeks to help school food service personnel offer a wide variety of nutritious and appealing meals to all students. First, the bill would provide targeted grant assistance to supply the seed funding needed to upgrade kitchen infrastructure or to purchase high-quality equipment. Second, it would establish a loan guarantee assistance program within USDA to help schools acquire new equipment. Finally, to aid school food services personnel in running successful, healthy programs, the legislation would authorize grants to support training and technical assistance for food service personnel.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to continue supporting school kitchen equipment needs as the Child Nutrition Reauthorization process takes shape. If our children are going to be able to learn and meet their full potential, they need their minds and bodies to be fully nourished. This bill would help us achieve that goal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.