Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rivka Jacobs, Katherine Klein, and Eric Stivers of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Subcommittee on Children and Families of the HELP Committee will meet on Thursday, June 9, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Getting the Most Bang for the Buck: Quality Early Education and Care.''

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Jessica McNiece at the subcommittee on (202) 224-9243.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to introduce the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Act. I am very pleased that Senator Blunt has joined me in introducing this legislation; he and I are both long-time supporters of the Special Olympics and Best Buddies programs authorized in this legislation. Equally importantly, we are continuing the bipartisan support that this legislation has historically enjoyed.

The Special Olympics program is respected around the world as a model and leader in using sport to end the isolation and stigmatization of individuals with intellectual disabilities. For more than 40 years, Special Olympics has encouraged skill development, sharing, courage and confidence through year-round sports training and athletic competition for children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Through their programs, Special Olympics has helped to ensure that millions of individuals with intellectual disabilities are assured of equal opportunities for community participation, access to appropriate health care, and inclusive education, and to experience life in a nondiscriminatory manner. Special Olympics gives athletes with intellectual disabilities the tools they need to be included in society, and it gives society the understanding and tools it needs to include them.

I can speak first-hand about what a rewarding experience it is for all of us who have been involved in Special Olympics. In 2006, my state of Iowa hosted the first USA National Summer Games. Thousands of athletes, volunteers, coaches, and families attended our Games, in addition to 30,000 fans and spectators. Ames, IA, was transformed into an Olympic Village, and it was thrilling to experience.

Similarly, the Best Buddies program is dedicated to ending the social isolation of people with intellectual disabilities by promoting peer support and friendships with their peers without disabilities. The aim is to increase the self-esteem, confidence and abilities of people with and without intellectual disabilities. Equally important, the Best Buddies program has provided opportunities for integrated employment for individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Research shows that participation in activities involving both people with intellectual disabilities and people without disabilities results in more positive support for inclusion in society, including in schools.

This bill is named in honor of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who devoted her life to improving the lives of people with intellectual disabilities around the world. Mrs. Shriver founded and fostered the development of Special Olympics and Best Buddies, both of which celebrate the possibilities of a world where all people, including those with disabilities, have meaningful opportunities for participation and inclusion.

In addition to reauthorizing the former Special Olympics Sports and Empowerment Act and providing an authorization for the Best Buddies program, this bill will also allow the Department of Education to award competitive grants to support increased opportunities for inclusive participation by individuals with intellectual disabilities in sports and recreation programs.

I am pleased to be the chief sponsor of this legislation, which will continue our support for these important programs that promote the extraordinary gifts and contributions of people with intellectual disabilities as well as broader community inclusion.

I urge all my colleagues to join with me and Senator Blunt in supporting this very worthy bill.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to introduce the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Act. I am very pleased that Senator Blunt has joined me in introducing this legislation; he and I are both long-time supporters of the Special Olympics and Best Buddies programs authorized in this legislation. Equally importantly, we are continuing the bipartisan support that this legislation has historically enjoyed.

The Special Olympics program is respected around the world as a model and leader in using sport to end the isolation and stigmatization of individuals with intellectual disabilities. For more than 40 years, Special Olympics has encouraged skill development, sharing, courage and confidence through year-round sports training and athletic competition for children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Through their programs, Special Olympics has helped to ensure that millions of individuals with intellectual disabilities are assured of equal opportunities for community participation, access to appropriate health care, and inclusive education, and to experience life in a nondiscriminatory manner. Special Olympics gives athletes with intellectual disabilities the tools they need to be included in society, and it gives society the understanding and tools it needs to include them.

I can speak first-hand about what a rewarding experience it is for all of us who have been involved in Special Olympics. In 2006, my state of Iowa hosted the first USA National Summer Games. Thousands of athletes, volunteers, coaches, and families attended our Games, in addition to 30,000 fans and spectators. Ames, IA, was transformed into an Olympic Village, and it was thrilling to experience.

Similarly, the Best Buddies program is dedicated to ending the social isolation of people with intellectual disabilities by promoting peer support and friendships with their peers without disabilities. The aim is to increase the self-esteem, confidence and abilities of people with and without intellectual disabilities. Equally important, the Best Buddies program has provided opportunities for integrated employment for individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Research shows that participation in activities involving both people with intellectual disabilities and people without disabilities results in more positive support for inclusion in society, including in schools.

This bill is named in honor of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who devoted her life to improving the lives of people with intellectual disabilities around the world. Mrs. Shriver founded and fostered the development of Special Olympics and Best Buddies, both of which celebrate the possibilities of a world where all people, including those with disabilities, have meaningful opportunities for participation and inclusion.

In addition to reauthorizing the former Special Olympics Sports and Empowerment Act and providing an authorization for the Best Buddies program, this bill will also allow the Department of Education to award competitive grants to support increased opportunities for inclusive participation by individuals with intellectual disabilities in sports and recreation programs.

I am pleased to be the chief sponsor of this legislation, which will continue our support for these important programs that promote the extraordinary gifts and contributions of people with intellectual disabilities as well as broader community inclusion.

I urge all my colleagues to join with me and Senator Blunt in supporting this very worthy bill.

Mr. President, during my floor speech last Thursday on for-profit education, I neglected to insert a letter into the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from Apollo Education Group be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, over the past 6 months, I have come to the floor several times to discuss the findings of an ongoing investigation by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee into the for- profit education sector, and the growing role they play in higher education. This investigation has been now ongoing for over a year.

Today, I want to focus my remarks on our men and women in uniform and how the for-profit schools are focusing on recruiting them to their schools, and what this means for the taxpayers of America.

The first GI bill made it possible for many of the servicemembers returning from World War II to go to college and get ahead in life. In the process, that ushered in a new era of American prosperity. That GI bill continued, of course, with Korea, through the Cold War, and through Vietnam. I myself used the GI bill after my service time so I could go to law school.

Over the decades, we have built on that success by extending Federal financial aid to active-duty members of our Armed Forces, and indeed to all Americans who seek to build a better life through higher education. On the whole, this has proved to be one of the Federal Government's smartest investments--an investment in human capital that has produced huge dividends for our Nation. We in Congress have been eager to ensure that this new generation of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan--those who sacrificed so much for our country--are getting the education benefits they earned and the quality of education they deserve.

Led by Senator Webb and others, we have enacted new laws and expanded existing programs to provide generous new educational benefits to veterans, to active-duty servicemembers, and to their families. This is a historic achievement, and I am sure all of us were proud to support it.

Implemented in August of 2009, the post-9/11 GI bill provides that veterans who serve 90 days or more on active-duty effort, after September 10, 2001, are eligible for up to 36 months of educational benefits; and for the first time ever in history, veterans can transfer these benefits to a spouse or to a child. Over the last decade, the Department of Defense has also expanded aid available to active-duty soldiers, sailors, and airmen through its tuition assistance program. This program will pay up to a maximum of $4,500 a year toward a servicemember's classes.

Also in 2009, Congress created the military spouse career advancement account, designed to expand employment and career opportunities for active-duty spouses, and that provides for a grant of $4,000 over a 3- year period of time.

When the Congress acted to give new and better benefits to veterans and active-duty members and their families, we fully expected that for- profit schools might have an important role to play in providing higher education. Obviously, they are flexible, and some of the primary work done is suited to veterans and active-duty soldiers and students juggling work and family obligations.

During my time in the military, of course, we had the University of Maryland, which still obviously provides a lot of online work. At that time, it was called ``distance learning,'' and you did it by mail. The University of Maryland provided a lot of educational benefits for many years to active-duty personnel serving in far-flung places around the world. Of course, that was not a for-profit school; that was a nonprofit school.

Unfortunately, when we enacted this whole new benefits package for servicemembers and veterans and their families, we didn't anticipate what would happen by opening up a new stream of funding to the for- profit schools. We didn't foresee that the for-profit sector, which is eager to please Wall Street investors, would go after student funding aggressively, in ways not in the best interests of veterans and servicemembers. We didn't recognize that by allowing servicemembers to combine, transfer, and borrow against these various Federal benefit packages we were giving for-profit schools an opening to enroll servicemembers, veterans, and family members in very expensive educational programs.

My committee's investigation over the past year has revealed an industry dominated by the very same Wall Street companies and equity investors who brought about the subprime mortgage crisis. These investors are focused on rapid growth and quick profits. In relatively short order, for-profit colleges and universities have succeeded in enrolling 10 percent of the students and claiming fully 25 percent of the Federal financial aid budget, including $7 billion a year in Pell grants. So the for-profit sector has 10 percent of all of the students in the country and gets 25 percent of all Federal financial aid.

Many of these companies generate big profits, and there is a big problem. The committee has compiled data for 30 companies that own for- profit schools, including the 15 largest publicly traded ones, showing that more than half of the students these institutions enroll drop out within the first year. Two-thirds of the students who are there for a 2-year program drop out in the first year. Some of the worst performing institutions have been the most aggressive to enroll servicemembers and veterans.

Because profitability and the for-profit education industry is driven by enrollment growth, my committee's investigation has focused largely on the extraordinarily aggressive marketing and recruitment practices at these schools. Building on the findings of last year's undercover investigation by the GAO, which found abusive recruitment practices at each of 15 campuses visited, we have uncovered additional evidence that misleading and deceptive recruiting tactics are not the exception but the norm.

Several months ago, on the floor of the Senate, I spoke about documents uncovered in my investigation. Those documents instruct recruiters in tactics designed to manipulate and emotionally exploit potential students in order to convince them to enroll. As I will demonstrate later in my speech they are going after the military by exploiting fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

We should be concerned that Congress may have unintentionally created an opening for the current generation of veterans and active-duty servicemembers to be victimized by these abuses simply because of their eligibility for expanded Federal aid that we enacted in the Congress.

My committee found evidence that large for-profit schools are aggressively recruiting active-duty servicemembers and veterans expressly because of their generous educational benefits packages. It is not just that these military benefits provide a new revenue stream for the companies. The point is that it is an especially valuable kind of revenue stream for these companies--more valuable than even going after nonveterans and non-GIs. Why is that?

Well, military money helps these for-profit schools to meet a key statutory requirement that no more than 90 percent of their revenue can come from Federal financial programs. That is in the law. No more than 90 percent of the income coming into a for-profit school can be from Federal financial programs. If a school is getting close to that 90 percent, guess what they do. They go after military people. Why is that? Because a military person, active duty or veteran, enrolled in a for-profit school doesn't count towards the 90 percent; it counts towards the 10 percent. So the school could actually have--and there are some--92 or 94 percent of all their money coming from Federal financial programs, even though the law says you can only get 90 percent, because military doesn't count. So you can see why, when close to 90 percent, they would want to go after the military. And that is exactly what is happening.

With their eyes on this 90/10 ratio, the for-profit schools have moved aggressively to exploit this opportunity. They have created marketing plans and a sales force specifically designed to target and enroll as many veterans, servicemembers, and family members as possible. Schools spend billions on sophisticated marketing campaigns and large sales teams to get those students in the door. Documents obtained by the HELP Committee paint a picture of an industry with a laser-like focus on enrolling military students.

For example, I have a 56-page document from Kaplan. This lays out their strategy for recruiting military students. If you go through it, you will see

their objective. As I said, they have a laser-like focus on enrolling military students.

Objective No. 1:

Grow our military enrollments to 9,000 per year by 2011.

At the time, Kaplan signed up about 2,200 military students each year. They were aiming at more than a four-fold increase in the military. The document goes on to lay out the marketing and sales plan for achieving this enormous growth. This is in this document:

Drive awareness via print advertising in key military

publications and targeting key military installations.

To do this, the document suggests that Kaplan plans to spend $30 million over 3 years for new military-specific recruiting staff, advertising, and public relations--just on the military.

In a later brainstorming exchange between Kaplan executives, the No. 1 item on the list of initiatives to deal with Kaplan's 90/10 because they were getting close to that 90 percent was:

Accelerate military billings/collections. Go to DC and pick

up the check if you have to.

Go get that military money so we do not go over that 90-percent limit.

At Education Management Corporation--another for-profit school--the story is similar. Let me quote from a 2010 memorandum prepared by a consultant to the CEO of EDMC, Education Management Corporation. The memo begins:

Thanks for the call outlining the interest of EDMC in

learning more about potential areas of funding that could add

revenue that would also address the 90/10 issue.

No. 1 on the list says:

Probably one of the most important potential short and

long-term targets for EDMC are the 800,000-plus military

spouses who have been authorized--

And this is in italics--

for the first time in history, for a one-time entitlement of

up to $6,000 . . . An aggressive effort to reach these

spouses at the military bases with various career fairs,

direct communications, and visibility with the Office of

Military Families in Washington would be very important.

A subsequent e-mail message between EDMC's executives recommends that the company should be ``leveraging military spouse benefits to the fullest extent possible'' in order to overcome the 90/10 regulation.

Executives of for-profit schools are candid about the value of military students in trying to ease investors' concerns about regulatory compliance. The CEO of Bridgepoint Education told investors:

Our military enrollment grew from 1 percent in 2007 to 17

percent at the end of September 2009.

He went on to say:

We believe that when we are able to report our 90/10 for

2009 that it should decrease due to our penetration in

particular into the military market.

We know these for-profit schools, in their own words, are aggressively pursuing military personnel and their families. How are they enticing them to enroll? A Kaplan training manual entitled ``Military Learning Modules'' tells recruiters how to utilize fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the sales process with regard to competitors' offers and teaches them to overcome objections that potential students may raise in signing an enrollment agreement.

This is the one from Kaplan:

Fear, uncertainty, doubt. This technique was originally

created within the computer hardware industry and uses these

emotions to attempt to influence perceptions or beliefs. The

technique is especially effective when prospects introduce

the ``need'' to examine other online schools.

In other words, a Kaplan recruiter calls up a veteran or a military person on Active Duty and wants to get them to enroll. If that person says: I have seen some ads for Phoenix, I have seen ads for ITT and others, maybe I will look them up, they want to use fear, uncertainty, and doubt when prospects introduce the need to examine other online schools.

Statements such as the following:

instill fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the features of

competitors' programs.

It is one thing if you are selling a keyboard or hard drive. That is one thing. But when you are doing it to enroll a young man or woman whose family may never have gone to college--they enlisted in the military out of a patriotic sense of duty; they have had no college experience whatsoever; maybe they did not do all that well in high school, but now they are thinking about what they are going to do, and they get hit with this. And I find really objectionable when these for- profit schools exploit fear, uncertainty, and doubt in our young military people.

I will have more to say about how onerous it is when they do this to get them to sign up with their school, to get students take taxpayers' money and turn it over to the school, only to find out they do not have any support, nothing to help them, and they drop out within a year. They have debt. They went through all their military benefits, which they can never get back, and the for-profit schools have the money.

A military recruiter at Colorado Technical University--another for- profit school--owned by the publicly traded Career Education Corporation, told the New York Times:

There is such pressure to simply enroll more vets--we knew

that most of them would drop out after the first session . .

. Instead of helping people, too often I felt like we were

almost tricking them.

Robert Songer, the coordinator of all education programs for servicemembers at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base in North Carolina, expressed his reservations to the Bloomberg news service.

Some of these schools prey on Marines . . . Day and night,

they call you, they e-mail you. These servicemen get caught

in that. Nobody in their families ever went to college. They

don't know about college.

These recruiting tactics are nothing short of disgraceful. When students are enrolled through deception or fear, not only are they being tricked, they are also more likely to be unprepared for the challenges of college. These strong-arm, emotionally abusive tactics are indicative of schools that see students strictly as a means to an end of higher profits. They appear to have little or no interest in providing students the academic help and support they need to succeed. The end result is that servicemembers, veterans, and their spouses end up enrolling in high-cost programs, dropping out in staggering numbers, often winding up with a mountain of student debt. This often happens despite the availability of similar or better quality programs in the public and nonprofit sectors of higher education.

The tactics have certainly paid off for the company's bottom line. I released a report last December documenting the absolutely tremendous increase in the amount of money these companies are receiving from military education programs. Building on the already substantial growth in revenues generated from the traditional financial aid programs-- which went, by the way, from $14 billion in 2005 to $29 billion in 2009--the relentless focus for-profits have brought to military recruiting has yielded an astonishing growth in the funds they get both from the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Again, keep in mind we are talking about two entities: Active-Duty personnel and veterans.

As the new post-9/11 GI bill was implemented, 18 large for-profit operators pushed their intake of VA dollars from $26 million in 2006 to an astonishing $286 million in 2010. This is what happened. This chart illustrates what happened in VA. Here we are at $26 million in 2006; $25 million in 2007; $27.6 million in 2008; and in 2009, when we passed the bill, it goes up to $55 million. Look what happened in 1 year, 2009, $55 million up to $285.8 million in 1 year. That is the amount of money they took in. That is just the Veterans Affairs funds.

The same companies increased their collection of Department of Defense benefits by 337 percent--$40 million in 2006 to $175 million in 2010. Again, this is for Active Duty. We see the steady increase all the way into 2010--$40 million in 2006 to $175 million in 2010.

This did not just happen; it happened because the for-profit companies decided they were going to go after the military because they were getting close to their 90-percent threshold. Keep in mind, these dollars do not count towards the 90-percent, so they can keep under the threshold by getting more military students.

Let's be clear. These exorbitant amounts of Federal dollars are not going to small, family-owned institutions. They are going to some of the largest Wall Street-owned companies. Out of the $640 million in post-9/11 GI benefits that flowed to for-profit schools just in 2009 and 2010--that is $\1/2\ billion; $640 million, $\1/2\ billion in 1

year--$439 million went to the 15 publicly traded companies. This amount is equal to 69 percent of the military money going to for-profit schools and 25 percent of all post-9/11 GI bill benefits.

Let me repeat that. Let's just say this: 25 percent--one-fourth--of all of the GI bill benefits post-9/11 went to 15 publicly traded companies. It would be one thing if the for-profit schools were using this for educational expenses, but unfortunately the lion's share of that money--taxpayers' dollars--went into profits, marketing, and-- guess what--Wall Street executive salaries and bonuses.

What are we getting in return for this enormous investment of taxpayers' dollars? We are getting a lot of questions.

We know student outcomes for the general population at for-profit schools are pretty dismal. On average, 55 percent of students who attend these schools drop out within a year, and there is no evidence that military students are faring better. Eight of the ten top recipients of VA dollars see more than half of the associate degree students they enroll drop out within the year, and five of the schools see more than a 60-percent drop.

This is what our investigation revealed. Here are the 10 schools receiving the most Department of Veterans Affairs funds. You see ITT, and they got the most--$79.2 million, and that is a 1-year amount. Of those who enrolled for a 4-year degree program, 44 percent withdrew; of those who signed up for a 2-year program, 53 percent withdrew. We look down here to Kaplan, and they got $17.3 million. On their bachelor's degree, 68.2 percent withdrew--69 percent of the 2-year students withdrew in the first year.

Here is with what is startling. That is bad enough as it is, but our investigation showed that neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs has any method to assess what is happening to these students. The money flows out, and neither the Department of Veterans Affairs nor the Department of Defense has any way to assess whether they are getting a good education.

I might also add, Senator Carper has looked into this in his subcommittee. He has looked into this, and we have discussed the possibility of working on something to get the Department of Defense to start taking better care of their Active-Duty personnel and the Department of Veterans Affairs to take better care of veterans. We need to have better assessment of what is happening to these students, how much debt they are accumulating, and what is happening to their education.

We are basically handing over huge and growing sums of military money to for-profit schools without any ability to assess whether these schools are giving our Active-Duty members or veterans the kind of a quality education they deserve.

The complaints I have gathered in the course of our investigation point to a deeply disturbing willingness on the part of for-profit schools to exploit veterans. I repeat, our investigation shows clearly that a number of these for-profit schools are out to exploit veterans. I received this letter from a veteran who attended ITT Technical Institute, the greatest recipient of VA funds. Here is what he said:

Unlike other institutions I reached out to, as soon as I

expressed interest in ITT Tech, they began to actively and

aggressively pursue me. Minutes after I filled out an online

form, a recruiter called me. He then called every day,

telling me it was urgent for me to enroll.

The letter writer notes that due to the high cost of tuition, he had to take out loans. But he writes:

The expensive tuition did not seem to go toward a quality

education.

He concludes with this:

Within 2 months of leaving ITT Tech, they sent me a bill

for $2,000 and a transcript that showed clear signs that it

was altered in a way to specifically make my positive balance

disappear and create a negative balance.

This letter writer ends with these chilling words:

I regret attending ITT Tech. The institution provided at

best an absolute minimum education and left me with nearly

insurmountable debt.

This is a veteran.

Here is another veteran who attended Bridgepoint Education Inc.'s Ashford University who wrote the following:

I was extremely disappointed, confused and angry. I felt I

had been misled, deceived or even outright lied to in an

effort to gain my contractual agreement.

He was repeatedly assured by Bridgepoint recruiters that his post- 9/11 GI bill benefits would cover the entire cost of his degree, only to find out after he was enrolled that he would owe close to $11,000.

Another student, this one at the University of Phoenix, sent this letter to the Arizona attorney general after trying to resolve his complaint with the school:

I have been a police officer for over 20 years. I am also

an Iraq war veteran. I believe that the University of Phoenix

is using deceptive practices in order to lure students into

the school. The enrollment counselors tell students that they

should be complete with their course of study in a short

period of time fully knowing exactly how long it is going to

take. The enrollment counselors eventually tell the student

it is going to take a lot longer to finish their program but

not until the student has committed all of his financial aid

and invested so much money that it would be senseless to

leave and waste his invested time and money.

A letter to the attorney general of Arizona.

What are the consequences for a student who enrolls at one of these schools but is not satisfied with their experience? The post-9/11 GI Bill benefit package can be depleted rapidly. If benefits are used up without completing a program or for credits that can't be transferred, the benefits cannot be recovered. In fact, because of the high tuition, many students, have to apply for additional grants or loans to pay for school. That means many veterans are pressured into signing up for one of these for-profit schools, told they have free money to pay for their tuition and then, all of a sudden, they find that is not quite enough money. Now they have to apply for a loan. They get a loan, they drop out within 1 year or so, the schools keep the money--some of it grant money, some of it loan money--and the GI or the military person is left with debt and no diploma.

Here is a letter addressed to the Ohio for-profit school regulator that just tears your heart out. This is from a mother:

Normally, a 26-year-old man doesn't need his mom advocating

for him. But this is anything but a normal situation. I

expected my son to be changed by his tour of duty in Iraq.

But I could not have been prepared for the reality of those

changes. My son struggles on a daily basis with symptoms from

PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and TBI (traumatic

brain injury). He suffers from bouts of depression, anxiety,

headaches, nightmares, vision problems, mental confusion,

insomnia, and many other symptoms. You have to pretty much

``bottom-line'' your conversations with him. He can't

mentally process a lot of details. If you continue with your

details, he is done with the conversation, unless you can

return to a quick ``bottom-line.''

The mother goes on:

It is my belief that the ITT Representative may have

quickly figured this out and taken advantage of the

opportunity. I remember when he called from ITT because I was

on my way out to an important occasion. He said the

Representative told him he needed a co-signer just so he

could start school immediately, but not to worry about it,

because the military was going to pay for everything, even

give him money to live on and pay his expenses. He sounded so

hopeful, something I hadn't heard from him since before the

war. It was really hard for him to admit he couldn't continue

going to school. He said he just couldn't retain the

material. It became too stressful for him to continue. My son

is a proud, young man. He is not looking for pity or charity.

He is embarrassed that he believed what he was told by the

ITT Rep. He could hardly come around me when he found out

that Sallie Mae was calling me for payment of his loan.

Veterans with PTSD commonly isolate themselves from family

and friends. This made it even worse. As a mother and a human

being, I am outraged this kind of predatory lending tactic is

used on anyone, but especially on an American soldier who

gave everything he had and almost lost his life many times,

and who continues to suffer. I will pursue this, on my son's

behalf, until someone listens and forgives these loans. Thank

you all for all of your effort, it is very much appreciated.

This situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that Active-Duty military personnel and veterans using their hard-earned benefits are becoming victims of these kind of high-pressure tactics of the for- profit schools--enticing them to enroll, taking their money, causing them to go even further into debt, and then not giving them any support whatsoever.

As I said before, the agencies distributing this money do not investigate or

act on the reported abuses of for-profit schools. They just don't. Earlier this month, the GAO released a report concluding that the VA still faces numerous challenges in implementing a program to start to begin interventions. Many for-profit schools have succeeded in building a highly profitable business structure while failing to provide the student services, a learning environment, and career services that would enable their students to graduate and succeed.

The Federal Government must be vigilant to ensure that poor performing for-profit schools with huge dropout and student default rates are not allowed to continue to receive billions of dollars in Federal taxpayer money every year. We owe this to taxpayers, but we also owe this to the men and women who served and sacrificed for our Nation in uniform. That is why I wanted to take the time on the floor today to point out this new and disturbing finding of our committee, how much these schools are targeting military personnel, how they are using high-pressure tactics to get them to enroll because they know they can get the money to help keep them below the 90-percent threshold.

It is shameful that these for-profit schools are allowed to get by with this. They continue it today. They continue reaping huge profits, paying their CEOs and their executives enormous amounts of money. Yet our men and women in uniform, our GIs, who are taken in are not provided any help or support but now are saddled with a lot of debt or have used up their GI bill benefits. Maybe now they want to go to a community college, somewhere to really get a good education, and they find out they cannot get any more GI bill money. They are done. They gave it all to one of these for-profit schools.

I ask unanimous consent to have the documents I referred to printed in the Record.

I am delighted to yield to my friend from Illinois, who has been a strong fighter for students and also, I would say, over the last several years has focused a lot of attention on these abuses of the for-profit schools.

Exhibit 1

Excerpts from KHE 267362 Kaplan Military University Agenda

Objectives Our Military Value Proposition The Pricing Pilot

The phases of the military strategy plan Field team

deployment Staffing Plan Appendix A. Pricing Analysis B.

Marketing Elements C. Public Relations Marketing D Web

Strategy E. American Military University Objectives Grow our

military enrollments to 9K per year by 2011 2009 increase

from 2.2.K to 6K enrollments 2010 8.8K enrollments 2011 10.5

K enrollments Over 3 years: Bring retention rate on par with

traditional students (28 to 34) Improve 90/10 by 5% Provide

incremental revenue of $XYZ in year 3 Objectives Transition

Kaplan into a ``top of mind'' educator within the active duty

& veteran military segments, penetrating the key decision

maker and influence (education service officers) Evolve our

product offering to attract, retain, and better educate

military students Transition current low converting lead &

poor retaining student base into highly profitable segment

Engage DOD/DHS in custom development of Kaplan Inc. solutions

Our Military Value Proposition We have dedicated ourselves to

serving our military students with advisors at each step who

understand military challenges (admission/FA/Academic

Advising/Career Counseling) We have designed our educational

platform to help you take full advantage of your military

training, experience and any previous college credit We are

integrated into military educational system, making it easier

for you to enroll and attend Kaplan Go Army Ed, SOC, AEX

Portal, Air force ABC program We've built in the flexibility

a military lifestyle demands Military Friendly LOA and

coursework extension policies We're committed to your success

and provide innovative tools to help you succeed in your

studies and career such as Kaplan MyPath helping you

customize your education We value the sacrifice you have made

to our country and provide all active duty and veterans

tuition packages, so you can get the quality education you

deserve and books are included so there are no unforeseen

expenses along the way We recognize that serving is a family

commitment, and also offer reduced tuition rates to military

spouses We support your lifetime learning needs, including an

online high school completion programs, professional

development programs, and higher degree programs Tactics

Drive awareness via print advertising in key military

publications and targeting key military installations ESO

Relationship Manager ESO outreach effort leveraging, phone,

web, DM, and supporting key military events and periodic base

events Target veteran and spousal community via key

publications and including military elements in traditional

student marketing Continuous development of military

offerings, providing tools for high conversion and referral

rates Leverage MSG field team in regional areas to drive

military events Community College Partners Educational

Liaisons to attend military events Business Development

efforts at Federal and DOD level Business Development

Activities DoD Activities Representing All of Kaplan, Inc.

Meeting with High Level Pentagon Officers Pursue Deeper

Relationships with branches Veteran Associations Financial

Plan Growth Projections Enrollments/Rev 2009 2010 2011

Expense Enrollment Total 6,196 8,848 10,526 MSGField

Marketing Expense Total $7,247,975 $10,139,450 $11,632,550

MSG Marketing Net Revenue--Total $4,277,301 $7,957,358

$11,768,938 MSG Lead Generation MSGField NonAggregation

Marketing 20082009 Military Marketing Impressions Total

Investment Print Out of Home Marketing eNewsletter Direct

Mail Total Impressions Operational (Events/Sponsorships)

CollateralBase & ESO Booth & Graphics Web Integration and

Landing Pages Development Costs Research Pricing Analysis

$1,596,050 Marketing Staffing Plan Roles & Definitions

Director of Military Marketing & Strategy Oversight over

all military marketing including: Lead Generation Web

strategy DM/EM Print Collateral Campaign management B2B

Marketing (ESO/DOD etc) Product Marketing Direct Product

Development Efforts Feasibility on new programs SOCAD/

SOCGUARD/SOCMAR etc Develop Sales Tools VA & other

military student programs Single Course Offerings

Alternate Delivery Modes Military Newsletter Coordinate

Military Research Field Support Marketing Operates on

shared services and with 1 direct report Military

marketing manager

Excerpts from KHE 271429 From: [High-level Executive] Sent:

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:55 PM To: [High-level

Executive]; [High-level Executive] Cc: [High-level

Executive]; [High-level Executive]; [High-level Executive];

[High-level Executive]: RE: KU 90/10 Issue [High-level

Executive], This has been an area of intense focus over the

last 30 days. In mid October we ([High-level Executive],

[High-level Executive] and I) projected our 90:10 at year end

based on current run rates to be 89.6%. We shared our

analysis and actions plans with [High-level Executive],

[High-level Executive] and [High-level Executive] and the

decision was made to switch SES from an automatic submission

process to a manual process. We needed the ability to

throttle our submissions based on our cash intake. Although

we have implemented a number of initial steps that will help

us increase our cash intake in the future, we have a larger

list of additional initiatives that we are continuing to move

forward and I could walk you through those at your

convenience. In response to your suggestions we have added

comments below: Accelerate military billings / collection at

KU. We have streamlined our internal process on timely

billings for our military students. The population of

military folks that are awaiting TA vouchers is approximately

$400K. Although our records indicate that we are current, we

are currently reconciling the entire military group to see if

we have any legacy items that were not billed correctly.

From: [High-level Executive] Sent: Wednesday, November 11,

2009 12:07 PM To: [High-level Executive]; [High-level

Executive] Cc: [High-level Executive]; [High-level

Executive]; [High-level Executive]; [High-level Executive];

[High-level Executive] Subject: KU 90/10 Issue Importance:

High Other areas to look at quickly/aggressively before

yearend: 1. Accelerate military billings / collection at KU.

Go to D.C. and pick up the check if you have to.

Excerpts from EDMC916000228224 Memorandum Confidential TO:

[Director] FROM: [Outside Consultant] DATE: July 8, 2010

SUBJECT: Possible Opportunities for EDMC ``90:10'' Thanks for

the call outlining the interest of EDMC in learning more

about potential areas of funding that could add students and

revenue that would also address the ``90:10'' issue. In light

of that dual set of interests, let us briefly review the

opportunities we see among recurring sources of government

funding, plus some other prospects to consider. THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT There are a number of emerging opportunities that

may present short, medium, and longerterm opportunities that

should also be carefully considered, given their size and

scale. The Military 1. Military Spouses. Probably one of the

most important potential short and longterm targets for

EDMC are the 800,000 plus military spouses who have been

authorized, for the first time in history, for a onetime

entitlement of up to $6,000 that can be used for training,

as well as for counseling and other ways to assist them in

finding work. We are told by the DOD that the largest

demand among the spouses is for healthcare related

training, although it can also cover almost all other

occupational areas. The Department of Defense has also

informed military personnel and their spouses that under

the most recent G.I. Bill, they can authorize up to 50

percent of his/her education benefits for the spouse to

continue their education. Therefore, in theory, every

spouse has access to two separate sources of funding. As

you probably know, military spouses are a particularly

attractive group of prospective students. Nearly twothirds

have at least some college education. The average age is

36, they have strong support systems with the military

bases and operations and, of course, they tend to be very

stable. The big issue that is driving these new training

funds is that

when the military do their surveys, the primary reason

people give for leaving the military is that their

``spouse is not happy.'' When the military spouses are

surveyed, they say the reason they are not happy is that

they cannot find a job or, more often, they cannot find a

good job for which they believe they are qualified with

their background and experience. This is the reason for

the focus on providing training and other forms of

assistance: so that they can get better jobs and, in turn,

encourage their spouses to stay in the military. The ``My

CAA'' (My Career Advancement Account) program for the

$6,000 entitlement for all 800,000 spouses, however, has

been thoroughly bungled. The entire webbased system for

enrollment literally collapsed in January. Therefore, the

DOD is not authorizing any new CAAs at the moment, and

they have spent months trying to restore the system. At

least 100,000 military spouses had gained eligibility when

the system ``crashed.'' Those are approved for their

training. Once My CAA gets up and running, one can safely

assume an enormous demand will follow, given all the

interest that has been shown by the spouses. EDMC was

provided information on becoming a ``Military Spouse

Friendly School'' in the past. We would strongly encourage

this to be a first step since that is the first stop the

spouses see on their websites. No doubt, EDMC is already

benefiting from some of this, but an aggressive effort to

reach the spouses at the military bases with various

career fairs, direct communications, and visibility with

the Office of Military Families in Washington would be

very important. 2. Enlisted Personnel. Of course, there is

the longstanding tuition and other support for most

members of the military as an entitlement. 3. Veterans

also have a variety of tuition and other benefits, plus

preferred eligibility for almost all other Federal

programs.

Excerpts from EDMC916000228222 From: [High-level

Executive]: Friday, July 30, 2010 9:22:51 PM To: [High-level

Executive] Subject: FW: Possible Opportunities for EDMC

``90:10'' Attachments: [High-level Executive] 0708 re

Opportunties.doc Hi I attended the call yesterday with

[Director] [High-level Executive] and [High-level Executive]

(Strategic Partnerships). The call as expected was to review

the areas that had been highlighted on the report as

potential opportunities for 90/10 impacting funding sources.

The outcome of the call was a followup call with [High-level

Executive] and [High-level Executive] on opportunities on

the local Workforce Boards and I took the action item for

a followup discussion on ensuring we are leveraging the

military spouse benefits to the fullest extent possible. I

plan to include [High-level Executive] in the next

discussion Do you recommend anyone else? [High-level

Executive] Original Message From: [High-level Executive]

Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 6:47 PM To: [High-level

Executive]; [High-level Executive] Subject: FW: Possible

Opportunities for EDMC ``90:10'' [High-level Executive]

and [High-level Executive], After you have had a chance to

review please give me a call. I know you are probably

wondering why the two of you. [High-level Executive]

because of the potential match with BMC and [High-level

Executive] because of the impact on OHE. [High-level

Executive]

Excerpts from KHE 094984 LEARNING OBJECTIVES Define and

demonstrate (through role play) each step in the A.C.T.I.O.N.

model Differentiate between Outcome Based and Process Based

Selling Utilize Outcome Based Selling language effectively

Differentiate between Feature, Advantage and Benefit (FAB)

Differentiate between Needs and Wants Utilize Open Ended

Questioning and Active Listening techniques Utilize Fear,

Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) in the sales process Handle and

overcome objectives Utilize trial close techniques KAPLAN

The Senator is right on the mark. The House wanted to keep the Department of Education from issuing what we call a gainful employment rule, which basically is a rule saying, if you are going to take all this money and you are supposed to be educating kids to get a job or career, what is happening to them? We want to know if they are actually getting jobs. What could be more innocent than that? We want to know how they are doing. Yet the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives wanted to stop the Department from issuing that rule.

The Senator is absolutely right.

I say to my friend, yes, we did. On December 8, our committee issued a report, December 8, 2010, a report on, partially-- what the Senator is saying now, how much more expensive these programs are in these schools compared to what they could get, say, at a community college or a nonprofit school in their States. The Senator is right, it is three to four times as much.

Plus there is one other thing, I say to my friend. He knows this. When these students go to a small not-for-profit school that you would have in Illinois or the colleges I have in Iowa, such as Simpson or Graceland or Central College--a number of our small private colleges-- they do a great job. They do a wonderful job in helping poor students who need a lot of Pell grants. What these colleges do when students come in and they borrow money and use Pell grants, is provide a lot of support from the university. The university is there to help them with their studies, to make sure they get the kind of help and support they need. A lot of these students come from families who have never gone to college, they never had that kind of experience. They come to college, and they get that support. What the for-profits do is they sign the kids up, and once they get the money, good luck in ever getting any help or support from the for-profit colleges.

That is right. Starting in August, that's about how much the GI Bill will pay per year.

Of course not.

I say to my friend, first of all, Westwood was one of the schools that the GAO had an undercover investigation into that had one of the most deceptive programs of getting students to sign up. That is all documented on film.

Second, the accrediting agency that accredits Westwood was out at Westwood about the same time. Yet they found none of the things the GAO found. I talked to them. I had a hearing. I had them before our committee. I asked the accrediting agency: How could it be that on the one hand the GAO finds out all this, yet you say they are fine and they get accredited?

They did admit there was some laxness or some loopholes, some things they were not paying attention to, that they needed to do a better job in accrediting.

I say to my friend, what the Federal Government does is we say to a school: To be able to be eligible for Federal financial aid so you could accept Pell grants and get the guaranteed student loans, you would have to be accredited. The Federal Government doesn't do that accrediting. That is done by private agencies.

Here is another one, I say to my friend from Illinois, that we need to look into. Get this. The accrediting agencies that accredit let's say a Westwood, do you know where they get their funding? From the schools they accredit. Talk about a fox in the chicken coop. They go out to accredit Westwood, but it is Westwood that is paying them to accredit them.

This is something that I think we as a Federal Government have to get into. To me, this is a system that has kind of run amok, this whole accrediting system. I think there needs to be a better system of accrediting schools. I can assure my friend this is something else our Committee on Education will be looking at in the future.

I say to my friend it is. It is embarrassing, and it is just shameful.

I said earlier this is from Kaplan's recruiting. They call it their military learning module. They call it ``Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.'' As I said earlier, they say--now, this is an internal document. This is for the recruiters. This is not something they hand out through the public. We got this through our investigation. They say: This technique was originally created within the computer hardware industry and uses these emotions to attempt to influence perceptions or beliefs--and on and on.

As I said earlier, it is one thing to use high pressure tactics to sell someone a hard drive or a new computer or something, but when they are exploiting fear, uncertainty, and doubt on a GI who may have post- traumatic stress disorder, who may have served in Iraq, who didn't go to college, that is another thing. Young people now, they are worried about their future and what is going to happen to their future. Then these people come in and put the pressure on them with fear, uncertainty, and doubt to get them to sign a contractual agreement and turn over their GI bill benefits. It is just disgraceful.

I think it is the other way around. The Washington Post owns Kaplan University.

Yes, they are.

That is right.

I say to my friend, the Senator is right on target. What has happened as we have looked at this over the last year and a half now is even the good actors are being sucked into this vortex because the business model itself is bad.

For example, how many times has my friend heard from the for-profit industry: Well, the reason we have these high dropout rates--for example, here is Westwood; 57.6 percent dropped out in the first year. Here is Kaplan; 69.1 percent dropped out in the first year--the reason we do is because, see, we serve a lot of low-income students. These are low-income people we serve, and they have a lot of problems in their lives. That is why we have such a high dropout rate.

What they are not telling us is, because of the business model, that is exactly who they go after to recruit. Why do they do that? Because the lowest income student gets the highest Pell grant and the most guaranteed student loan. So if you are in the for-profit business and you want to make the most money, you don't want to recruit Senator Durbin's son or daughter. You want to recruit somebody whose parents never went to college, who is probably a minority, maybe doesn't even speak English all that well, who can get the maximum Pell grant and the maximum student loan, and once they

get the money--well, if they stay, fine; if they don't, no big deal.

This is something else we have to look into. Right now, the Federal laws are that a student has to be in for at least 60 percent of the term. If they are in for 60 percent of a term, then the school can keep the money.

Now, I ask my friend from Illinois, what is a term? I ask people that, and they say: well, isn't that a semester? Well, a term is whatever the school says it is. Some of these schools have a term that is 6 weeks long. So you sign up, you turn over your money, you spend 4 weeks there, you fulfill 60 percent of the term. If you leave, they keep the money.

And, by the way, as the Senator fully knows, these student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. They are around your neck forever.

I thank the Senator for his great work on this.

I just want to add one other thing about the school and about the debt of these students. Some have likened what the for-profit school industry is doing to the subprime bubble we had. But there is a big difference. Even as bad as the subprime mortgages were, a person who had a house they couldn't pay for could walk away from that house. They could always walk away from it, and that is the end of the debt. You can't walk away from this. No way. That is the difference.

This is not a dischargeable debt, and these students, as the Senator points out, might end up alone. They might not be able to go to a legitimate school because they can't get any money for that. They could be barred from Federal employment. This will follow them for the rest of their lives until they pay it off. Yet these companies are making almost obscene profits and paying their CEOs tremendous salaries and benefits.

As I pointed out earlier, many of these for-profit schools are owned by the same investment firms on Wall Street that brought us the subprime problem.

Well, I say to my friend, we just cannot let this go. There is too much at stake not only for the taxpayers of this country but for these students, these young kids, these poor kids who are being preyed upon. So whenever we hear these schools say: Well, the reason we have this problem is because we are servicing all of these poor kids--don't forget. That is who they prey on. That is who they go after because they get the most Pell grants and the most student loans out of the poor kids. Then after they get the money, hey, if they leave, no sweat. They don't care. It is not a problem with them.

I thank my friend from Illinois.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, in many of our Nation's poorest communities, children and families do not have access to the educational opportunities that enable youth to start school ready to learn and graduate from secondary school ready to succeed in college and the workforce, achieve economic self-sufficiency, and support families of their own someday.

As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, it is my responsibility to lead the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which affords an exciting opportunity to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education for our children and youth. Our Nation's future economic strength and national security require well-educated workers who are not only academically prepared, but also healthy, understand the importance of community and civic participation, and possess the skills needed to successfully compete in the 21st century global economy. To accomplish these goals, children and youth must have access to a great education and safe and supportive community, beginning at birth.

However, in too many communities the consequences of poverty limit the chances students have to obtain a solid academic foundation that leads to college and career success. That is why we need Promise Neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhood partnerships leverage community assets to significantly improve academic outcomes, including school readiness, high school graduation and college entry and completion. Promise Neighborhood partners use data-driven decisionmaking to guide investments in a community-based continuum of high-quality services and evidence-based practices that address the needs of children, from birth through college and career entry. The reauthorization of ESEA provides us with an opportunity to build upon the successes of Promise Neighborhoods, of which there are more than 40 across the country, to ensure that children and youth have access to good schools, integrated students supports and other wrap-around services needed to ensure academic, as well as social and emotional, growth and development.

The lack of supports for families and children in distressed neighborhoods has a profound impact on student achievement and development. Children from poor families are less likely to have access to nutritious foods, high-quality early learning programs, adults who read to them every day, and basic health care. As a result, these children are more likely to experience sickness and developmental delays, chronic hunger and homelessness, and abuse and neglect--all of which contribute to slow brain development and low academic achievement. Children from low-income families enter kindergarten approximately three months behind the national average in reading and enter first grade with 900 hours less of one-on-one book-reading time than do their middle-class peers.

The number of poor children facing these challenges and experiencing these devastating results is growing at an alarming rate. According to the National Center for Children and Poverty, the number of poor children under age 6 increased by 24 percent between 2000 and 2007. The center also found that in my home State of Iowa, 20 percent of children under age 6 live in poor families. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of children living in poverty nationwide grew by 2.2 million, to 15.5 million. This means that more of our Nation's children are starting school ill-equipped to thrive and gain the skills needed for success in the 21st century. The best way to combat this trend is to ensure that all children, especially those in low-income and under-resourced communities, have access to high-quality early learning programs, effective schools, and family and student supports that prepare them for success.

One low-income neighborhood where children and their families receive these essential programs and supports is in Harlem, through an organization called Harlem Children's Zone. Geoffrey Canada began Harlem Children's Zone as a single-block pilot in the 1990s, which has since expanded to 96 blocks. Today Harlem Children's Zone operates two charter schools and leverages a wide range of public, nonprofit, and philanthropic resources to provide wrap-around services to over 10,000 youth and about the same number of adults each year. Harlem Children's Zone's programs have equipped children with the skills needed to be successful in elementary school and have provided families with the tools needed to effectively support their children's development and academic achievement. The New York Times has called it ``one of the most ambitious social-service experiments of our time''.

The bill I am introducing today builds on this outstanding framework. This Promise Neighborhoods proposal would fund competitive grants to implement cradle-to-career ``continuums of care'' similar to Harlem Children's Zone for children in distressed neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhoods encourages communities and schools to leverage partnerships that provide children with access to evidence-based education reforms, community services, and family supports that improve academic, developmental, career, and life outcomes.

This bill focuses on ensuring the provision of high-quality early learning programs, effective family and community engagement strategies, and better services for special populations, such as children with disabilities and English learners.

It also allows for grants that are led by community-based organizations working in partnership with school districts, or led by schools in partnership with community-based organizations or institutions of higher education. Partners must collaborate to develop and implement a high-quality, evidence-based pipeline of services. This

pipeline, at a minimum, must support social and emotional development beginning at birth, enhance academic achievement, and prepare students for success in college and 21st century careers.

Promise Neighborhoods is a new kind of Federal grant. It requires organizations, agencies, and caring adults to work together to revitalize a single neighborhood, focusing on access to the educational and other supports children need to be successful in school and in life. It also supports communities in working together to combat the devastating effects poverty has on children's development and academic achievement.

One day I would hope that all children grow up in a neighborhood that provides support for their success from birth. This bill will help us take an important step towards this vision.

Mr. President, in many of our Nation's poorest communities, children and families do not have access to the educational opportunities that enable youth to start school ready to learn and graduate from secondary school ready to succeed in college and the workforce, achieve economic self-sufficiency, and support families of their own someday.

As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, it is my responsibility to lead the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which affords an exciting opportunity to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education for our children and youth. Our Nation's future economic strength and national security require well-educated workers who are not only academically prepared, but also healthy, understand the importance of community and civic participation, and possess the skills needed to successfully compete in the 21st century global economy. To accomplish these goals, children and youth must have access to a great education and safe and supportive community, beginning at birth.

However, in too many communities the consequences of poverty limit the chances students have to obtain a solid academic foundation that leads to college and career success. That is why we need Promise Neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhood partnerships leverage community assets to significantly improve academic outcomes, including school readiness, high school graduation and college entry and completion. Promise Neighborhood partners use data-driven decisionmaking to guide investments in a community-based continuum of high-quality services and evidence-based practices that address the needs of children, from birth through college and career entry. The reauthorization of ESEA provides us with an opportunity to build upon the successes of Promise Neighborhoods, of which there are more than 40 across the country, to ensure that children and youth have access to good schools, integrated students supports and other wrap-around services needed to ensure academic, as well as social and emotional, growth and development.

The lack of supports for families and children in distressed neighborhoods has a profound impact on student achievement and development. Children from poor families are less likely to have access to nutritious foods, high-quality early learning programs, adults who read to them every day, and basic health care. As a result, these children are more likely to experience sickness and developmental delays, chronic hunger and homelessness, and abuse and neglect--all of which contribute to slow brain development and low academic achievement. Children from low-income families enter kindergarten approximately three months behind the national average in reading and enter first grade with 900 hours less of one-on-one book-reading time than do their middle-class peers.

The number of poor children facing these challenges and experiencing these devastating results is growing at an alarming rate. According to the National Center for Children and Poverty, the number of poor children under age 6 increased by 24 percent between 2000 and 2007. The center also found that in my home State of Iowa, 20 percent of children under age 6 live in poor families. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of children living in poverty nationwide grew by 2.2 million, to 15.5 million. This means that more of our Nation's children are starting school ill-equipped to thrive and gain the skills needed for success in the 21st century. The best way to combat this trend is to ensure that all children, especially those in low-income and under-resourced communities, have access to high-quality early learning programs, effective schools, and family and student supports that prepare them for success.

One low-income neighborhood where children and their families receive these essential programs and supports is in Harlem, through an organization called Harlem Children's Zone. Geoffrey Canada began Harlem Children's Zone as a single-block pilot in the 1990s, which has since expanded to 96 blocks. Today Harlem Children's Zone operates two charter schools and leverages a wide range of public, nonprofit, and philanthropic resources to provide wrap-around services to over 10,000 youth and about the same number of adults each year. Harlem Children's Zone's programs have equipped children with the skills needed to be successful in elementary school and have provided families with the tools needed to effectively support their children's development and academic achievement. The New York Times has called it ``one of the most ambitious social-service experiments of our time''.

The bill I am introducing today builds on this outstanding framework. This Promise Neighborhoods proposal would fund competitive grants to implement cradle-to-career ``continuums of care'' similar to Harlem Children's Zone for children in distressed neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhoods encourages communities and schools to leverage partnerships that provide children with access to evidence-based education reforms, community services, and family supports that improve academic, developmental, career, and life outcomes.

This bill focuses on ensuring the provision of high-quality early learning programs, effective family and community engagement strategies, and better services for special populations, such as children with disabilities and English learners.

It also allows for grants that are led by community-based organizations working in partnership with school districts, or led by schools in partnership with community-based organizations or institutions of higher education. Partners must collaborate to develop and implement a high-quality, evidence-based pipeline of services. This

pipeline, at a minimum, must support social and emotional development beginning at birth, enhance academic achievement, and prepare students for success in college and 21st century careers.

Promise Neighborhoods is a new kind of Federal grant. It requires organizations, agencies, and caring adults to work together to revitalize a single neighborhood, focusing on access to the educational and other supports children need to be successful in school and in life. It also supports communities in working together to combat the devastating effects poverty has on children's development and academic achievement.

One day I would hope that all children grow up in a neighborhood that provides support for their success from birth. This bill will help us take an important step towards this vision.

Mr. President, last weekend we observed Mother's Day and celebrated our families. When we reflect on our own mothers, many of us think about the woman who nursed us when we were sick, took us to the doctor for checkups, and cared for our grandparents as they aged, while at the same time working to put food on the table.

These balancing acts are hard enough. But for many moms, and dads, across the country, juggling all these roles means making impossible choices. This is especially true for people who do not have the basic right of paid sick days. For these workers, missing work due to an illness, injury, or doctor's appointment can mean putting their job and their family's financial security in jeopardy. So they are forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In these difficult economic times, no one should have to make that choice.

But for a huge segment of the American workforce, these difficult choices are a daily reality. Four in ten U.S. workers have no paid sick days, they cannot miss a day of work with the guarantee of their pay or the assurance that their job will be there when they come back. What is more, 2/3 of low-wage workers, those who can least afford to lose a paycheck or a job, have no paid sick days. This means many of these workers report to work sick or send their children to school or day care sick, spreading their illness to others.

This robs workers of their basic dignity, and that shouldn't happen in a country as wealthy and successful as America. In fact, the U.S. is the only developed country that does not guarantee paid sick days to its workers, and our workers are the most productive in the world! America's workers deserve to earn a decent living; a living where they can provide for their families without being punished when they or their children catch the flu. America's workers deserve paid sick days.

Lack of access to paid sick days isn't just a crisis for individual families--it's a public health crisis as well. Health officials urge people with contagious illnesses to stay home from work to avoid spreading disease. But the workers in industries with the most contact with the public, such as food service and hospitality, are the least likely to have paid sick days. A recent survey shows that nearly two- thirds of restaurant workers, 3/4 of whom don't have paid sick days, report cooking or serving food while sick. This puts the health of all of us in jeopardy. And not having paid sick days puts these workers in the terrible position of choosing between the health of their customers and their family's health and economic security.

But this doesn't have to be the case. We can give working people the tools they need to protect their health and their families' health while also safeguarding the public health. Workers want to do the right thing and stay home when they are ill or stay home with their sick children rather than sending them to school. But our current laws simply do not protect them.

This is why Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and I are introducing the Healthy Families Act, which will allow U.S. workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days per year to recover from short-term illness, care for a sick family member, seek routine medical care, or seek help if they are victims of domestic violence. This important legislation will provide much-needed security for hardworking families struggling to balance the obligations of work and family. It will improve public health and decrease health costs by preventing the spread of disease and giving employees the access they need to obtain preventive care and treatment. It will also help victims of domestic violence to protect their families and their futures.

Providing paid sick days to workers will be good for working people and their families, and good for our businesses and our economy as well. Allowing workers to tend to their health or their families' engenders good will and loyalty, and boosts morale at the workplace. Businesses will save because the greatest cause of lost productivity due to illness is not absenteeism but ``presenteeism,'' the practice of sick workers coming to work, infecting their colleagues, and being less productive themselves. Businesses whose workers have paid sick days will also benefit from reduced turnover, and its high associated costs, when workers can hold on to their jobs. Experience bears this out, in San Francisco, where workers have had guaranteed paid sick days since 2007, surveys show that 6 out of 7 employers found no negative effect on profit. Indeed, 4 years after implementation, two-thirds of surveyed employers were supportive of the city's paid sick days law.

The overall economy will benefit from reduced health costs as well. Ensuring that workers are able to seek preventive care as well as care in a doctor's office, rather than the ER, will minimize health care costs. Reducing the spread of contagious illnesses by allowing workers or children to stay at home where they won't infect their coworkers or classmates will also reduce health costs by keeping more people healthy in the first place.

Most of all, workers will have peace of mind and financial security. They won't be faced with a potentially long search for new work, while collecting unemployment benefits. They won't face reduced income and having to cut back on their spending on food, medicine, and other necessities bought in their local communities. Working people will have the security of knowing that if illness strikes, they will be able to tend to their families without losing their jobs or their paychecks.

The Healthy Families Act has had the strongest of Senate champions who have led the fight for workers' rights, Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd. I am proud to be the new leader for this vital piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues who are joining me today as original cosponsors, and I encourage all Senators to join us in supporting the Healthy Families Act. This bill will provide health, peace of mind, and security for America's workers and their families. At a time when the American Dream and the middle class seem to be slipping away, these goals could never be more important.

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

Mr. President, last weekend we observed Mother's Day and celebrated our families. When we reflect on our own mothers, many of us think about the woman who nursed us when we were sick, took us to the doctor for checkups, and cared for our grandparents as they aged, while at the same time working to put food on the table.

These balancing acts are hard enough. But for many moms, and dads, across the country, juggling all these roles means making impossible choices. This is especially true for people who do not have the basic right of paid sick days. For these workers, missing work due to an illness, injury, or doctor's appointment can mean putting their job and their family's financial security in jeopardy. So they are forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In these difficult economic times, no one should have to make that choice.

But for a huge segment of the American workforce, these difficult choices are a daily reality. Four in ten U.S. workers have no paid sick days, they cannot miss a day of work with the guarantee of their pay or the assurance that their job will be there when they come back. What is more, 2/3 of low-wage workers, those who can least afford to lose a paycheck or a job, have no paid sick days. This means many of these workers report to work sick or send their children to school or day care sick, spreading their illness to others.

This robs workers of their basic dignity, and that shouldn't happen in a country as wealthy and successful as America. In fact, the U.S. is the only developed country that does not guarantee paid sick days to its workers, and our workers are the most productive in the world! America's workers deserve to earn a decent living; a living where they can provide for their families without being punished when they or their children catch the flu. America's workers deserve paid sick days.

Lack of access to paid sick days isn't just a crisis for individual families--it's a public health crisis as well. Health officials urge people with contagious illnesses to stay home from work to avoid spreading disease. But the workers in industries with the most contact with the public, such as food service and hospitality, are the least likely to have paid sick days. A recent survey shows that nearly two- thirds of restaurant workers, 3/4 of whom don't have paid sick days, report cooking or serving food while sick. This puts the health of all of us in jeopardy. And not having paid sick days puts these workers in the terrible position of choosing between the health of their customers and their family's health and economic security.

But this doesn't have to be the case. We can give working people the tools they need to protect their health and their families' health while also safeguarding the public health. Workers want to do the right thing and stay home when they are ill or stay home with their sick children rather than sending them to school. But our current laws simply do not protect them.

This is why Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and I are introducing the Healthy Families Act, which will allow U.S. workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days per year to recover from short-term illness, care for a sick family member, seek routine medical care, or seek help if they are victims of domestic violence. This important legislation will provide much-needed security for hardworking families struggling to balance the obligations of work and family. It will improve public health and decrease health costs by preventing the spread of disease and giving employees the access they need to obtain preventive care and treatment. It will also help victims of domestic violence to protect their families and their futures.

Providing paid sick days to workers will be good for working people and their families, and good for our businesses and our economy as well. Allowing workers to tend to their health or their families' engenders good will and loyalty, and boosts morale at the workplace. Businesses will save because the greatest cause of lost productivity due to illness is not absenteeism but ``presenteeism,'' the practice of sick workers coming to work, infecting their colleagues, and being less productive themselves. Businesses whose workers have paid sick days will also benefit from reduced turnover, and its high associated costs, when workers can hold on to their jobs. Experience bears this out, in San Francisco, where workers have had guaranteed paid sick days since 2007, surveys show that 6 out of 7 employers found no negative effect on profit. Indeed, 4 years after implementation, two-thirds of surveyed employers were supportive of the city's paid sick days law.

The overall economy will benefit from reduced health costs as well. Ensuring that workers are able to seek preventive care as well as care in a doctor's office, rather than the ER, will minimize health care costs. Reducing the spread of contagious illnesses by allowing workers or children to stay at home where they won't infect their coworkers or classmates will also reduce health costs by keeping more people healthy in the first place.

Most of all, workers will have peace of mind and financial security. They won't be faced with a potentially long search for new work, while collecting unemployment benefits. They won't face reduced income and having to cut back on their spending on food, medicine, and other necessities bought in their local communities. Working people will have the security of knowing that if illness strikes, they will be able to tend to their families without losing their jobs or their paychecks.

The Healthy Families Act has had the strongest of Senate champions who have led the fight for workers' rights, Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd. I am proud to be the new leader for this vital piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues who are joining me today as original cosponsors, and I encourage all Senators to join us in supporting the Healthy Families Act. This bill will provide health, peace of mind, and security for America's workers and their families. At a time when the American Dream and the middle class seem to be slipping away, these goals could never be more important.

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

Mr. President, recently the National Labor Relations Board general counsel issued a complaint against the Boeing Company alleging that the company had violated the National Labor Relations Act. This routine administrative procedure has set off what I call a melodramatic outcry from Boeing, the business community, the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal, the National Chamber of Commerce, and, of course, our friends on the Republican side of the aisle.

A headline in the Wall Street Journal editorial page calls it: ``The death of right to work.''

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley declared that it was ``government dictated economic larceny.''

At a press conference held at the Chamber of Commerce yesterday morning, Senator DeMint from South Carolina referred to it as ``thuggery.''

The senior Senator from Utah warned that foot soldiers of a vast and permanent bureaucracy were trying to implement a ``leftist agenda.''

One would think this one decision by an administrative arm of an independent agency was surely going to bring about the death of capitalism in the world today. This has taken on incredible proportions in terms of the outcry and the mischaracterization of what has happened.

Instead of talking about how we get Americans working again, get the middle class on its feet, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are taking their time on the Senate floor and in press conferences downtown attacking the handling of a routine affair--an unfair labor practice charge.

I do not think it is worth the time of the Senate to debate this issue. However, because of this huge outcry and the fact that the Wall Street Journal has chosen to editorialize on this issue and because of the disturbing misinformation that has distorted public discussion of this case, I am going to take some time on the Senate floor to try to, as they say, set the record straight.

I have said before this Boeing case is a classic example of the old saying that a lie is halfway around the world before the truth laces up its boots. I would say, in this case, Senate information travels even faster than that. So it is time to set the record straight.

Here are the facts in the case. It is undisputed Boeing recently decided to locate a production facility for the new Dreamliner planes in South Carolina. They decided to do that. Many statements were made by executives of Boeing, publicly stated, that the decision to move there was based in whole or in large part on the fact that there had been work stoppages, strikes in the last few years at the Boeing plant in Everett, WA. The NLRB's complaint alleges that this decision was unlawful retaliation against the Boeing workers in Washington State.

This has been put into a political context, but let's again be clear about how this happens. The National Labor Relations Board is an independent agency set up under the Wagner Act 75 years ago. There are two branches of the NLRB. One is the Board, the NLRB, the national board. It is a five-member board appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. On the other hand, there are the career service people, outside of the General Counsel, the civil servants who are not appointed. They are nonpolitical. They carry out the day-to-day functions of the National Labor Relations Act. If I may say, it is similar to the Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration has an Administrator appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, as do a lot of other independent agencies. But then there is a civil service side of it that is professional--professional people not appointed by the President. They have career civil service status.

The general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board is appointed, but the rest of the staff in the area of the career civil service. The acting general counsel now has been a civil servant for 30 years.

What happens is, a business or a union--it does not have to be them; it can be anybody--can file a complaint with the NLRB, alleging that certain actions were in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. One of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act says it is unlawful for a company to retaliate against workers for a protected activity conducted by those workers--protected activity.

One of the protected activities under the National Labor Relations Act is, of course, the right to organize, the right to join a union, and, of course, under the Taft-Hartley bill, some years later, the right not to join a union if you do not want to, so-called right-to- work States.

The protected activity in this case is the right to strike. The National Labor Relations Act protects that activity. Organized workers in a union have the right to strike. It is a protected activity. A company cannot retaliate against workers for exercising that right.

So if--if, I say ``if''--if the Boeing Company did, in fact, move a production line to another State in retaliation against the workers who exercised their right to strike in Washington, that would be illegal for Boeing to do that--unlawful. I said ``if'' because I am not here taking a side in the case. I am not certain where the truth lies. This is for the trier of fact and the trier of law.

When a complaint such as this comes to the National Labor Relations Board, they investigate it. The National Labor Relations Board investigated, under the general counsel's office, the civil service part. They did an investigation. They took affidavits. They talked with people to find out whether there was any cause to move forward.

Again, whether it is right or wrong, I do not know, but this independent civil servants decided there was enough evidence for them to warrant taking this case to an administrative law judge. That is the process. Boeing then can make its case before the administrative law judge. The general counsel's office can make its case. The administrative law judge then makes a decision. As I understand it, the administrative law judge can find for the general counsel, it can uphold their theory or it can modify it.

After that is done, either side can appeal it. That appeal then goes from the civil service part over to the National Labor Relations Board. After the Board then reviews it, they make a decision. They either uphold what the administrative law judge said or they do not uphold it.

From there, either side can appeal to the circuit court of appeals, and from the circuit court of appeals, they can appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the process. That process has been followed now for 75 years.

We follow similar processes in other independent agencies of the Federal Government. I mentioned the Federal Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission. A lot of other independent boards and agencies have that same process.

What has happened now is, many of our friends on the Republican side and in the business community have now taken up the hue and cry that this process should be interfered with, that this process should somehow be stopped politically. I do not think it is our right, our job here to interfere in something such as that politically. If my friends on the Republican side do not like the provision of the National Labor Relations Act which says it is illegal to take retaliation against workers for protected activity, if my friends on the Republican side want to change that law, offer a bill, offer an amendment. That law can be changed. With both bodies--the House and the Senate--and the President signing it, we can change it. But it is wrong for, I believe, elected officials, such as myself or anyone else, to interfere in that process and to cast it as a political decision. But that is what is being done by so many Republican Senators and people in the business community.

They have alleged that President Obama was behind this, that somehow because he has appointed a couple members of the National Labor Relations Board that he is behind this issue. President Obama had nothing to do with it. This was a complaint filed by the Machinists Union, the International Association of Machinists, with the NLRB. President Obama has nothing to do with this whatsoever, and he should not have anything to do with it. But, again, people on the Republican side are alleging--again, misinformation, misinformation, misinformation going out--that somehow this is being orchestrated out of the White House.

Again the facts: The facts are there was a complaint filed. The National Labor Relations Board is doing exactly what they have done for the last 75 years. It is going to go before an administrative law judge and then find out how it works its way through the courts at that time.

I would ask my friends on the Republican side, if in, fact--if, in fact--the Boeing Company did retaliate against workers because of a protected activity, do my friends on the Republican side say that should be OK? Is that what they are saying; that if workers exercise a legally protected right and a company retaliates against those workers anyway they ought to be able to do that?

I can take all kinds of cases. Let's say a company decides to move a plant from Southern California to, let's just say Fargo, ND, and the reason they state they moved it was because there were too many Hispanics working in their plant in Southern California and they didn't like that. They wanted to

move it to Fargo, ND, because there are not that many Hispanics there.

Guess what, folks. That is illegal. That is illegal. Do my friends on the Republican side say they ought to be able to do that in violation of all our civil rights laws in this country? Of course not.

People say: Of course, they can't make that kind of decision based on that. They can't make a decision to move a plant where there are more men than women so they won't have to hire more women; or less African Americans so they don't have to hire more African Americans. We can carry this on and on.

So I hope my friends on the Republican side are not saying a company can retaliate and then just walk away without any penalties, without even any recourse by the workers to have their cases heard. That is what I am here defending. I am defending the rights of the workers in the plant in Everett, WA, to have their complaints heard.

Now, I don't know the facts. I know a little of the law, but I don't know the facts. That is for the trier. That is for the administrative law judge and the NLRB and the appeals court and the Supreme Court. That is their jurisdiction. But for us to say it shouldn't even go there; that these workers can't even bring a case--and I might add, there are a lot of cases that are filed with the NLRB that don't go there because the NLRB investigates; they do their due diligence; and they find out there is not even enough evidence to warrant going forward.

So all I can assume is here there was enough evidence to warrant going forward. Whether there is enough to actually find that Boeing did retaliate, again, I don't know. That is up to the trier of fact--the administrative law judge. But I am hearing from these dramatic outcries that somehow we are destroying the right to work. This case has nothing to do with right to work--nothing--zero. It has nothing to do with right-to-work laws. This case has nothing to do with the outcry that somehow this is destroying the essence of a business to be able to decide, in its best economic interest, where to locate.

If Boeing wants to open their plant in Timbuktu, they can do that. If they want to open a plant in South Carolina, they can do that. What they can't do is open a plant someplace in retaliation against the workers exercising their legally protected rights; that, they can't do.

Now, again, this is an evidentiary-type hearing. So the evidence will have to come forward as to just what decisions were made, why they were made. Quite frankly, there are executives of Boeing who have publicly stated--publicly--that one of the reasons they moved was because of the work stoppages at the Everett plant--work stoppages, strikes. Is that enough evidence? I don't know. Maybe it is enough evidence to warrant going forward. Obviously, the general counsel's office decided there was.

I would also point out, Mr. President, the general counsel's office in cases such as this works long and hard to try to settle the case--to get both sides to settle. I know the general counsel's office in this case did try to do that, but they were unsuccessful; therefore, the case goes forward.

So I want to point out again--just to reiterate, Mr. President--this is not about doing away with the right-to-work laws. It has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with interfering with businesses' making decisions on where to locate their plants or anything such as that. It has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with destroying capitalism. It has to do with whether workers have a right-- first of all, can they exercise their legally protected rights, and then can they make a case to the NLRB they were retaliated against because they exercised their legal rights. That is what this case is about. That is what this case is about.

Again, I understand the desire of certain people to raise money for political campaigns. I understand that. I understand how one might exaggerate things a lot of times in direct mail and in the press. I am sure there will be a lot of businesses that will hear: You have to contribute to this campaign or that campaign to stop President Obama or to stop the National Labor Relations Board from taking your business decisions away from you.

Well, that is misinformation. I know it can be used to raise a lot of campaign money, but it is not right. It is not right to deceive and to misinform the American people about a basic right that protects middle- class workers in America. Americans understand fairness, and they resent it when the wealthy and the powerful manipulate the political system to reap huge advantages at the expense of working people.

I think I have always been a pretty good friend of the Boeing Company. I have been a big supporter of Boeing in so many things, going back in my 30 years in the Congress. It is a great company. They provide a lot of great jobs for American workers. They build great airplanes--better than Airbus, I might say. But it is wrong for them now to come in and try to get the political system to undo a legal administrative procedure the workers at that Boeing plant have instigated and have asked for the NLRB to investigate and to charge Boeing with retaliation.

What is happening in this case is that the powerful and the big are trying to manipulate the political system. Powerful corporate interests are pressuring Members of this body to interfere with an independent agency rather than letting it run its course.

We should not tolerate this interference. We should turn our attention to the issues that matter to American families--how we can create jobs in Washington, and, yes, in South Carolina, in Iowa, and across the country; how we can rebuild the middle class, how we can ensure that working hard and playing by the rules will help rebuild a better life for families and for their children. Playing by the rules is what the workers did. They played by the rules. They exercised their legal rights, and now there is a complaint filed. I say it is wrong for us to interfere in that.

Again, if we don't like the law, if we don't like the administrative procedures that undergird this, it can be changed. It can be changed. But I daresay we have had 75 years of the Wagner Act--of this process, and I will close on this: Sometimes businesses file a complaint with the NLRB against a union activity, and that is investigated. That goes before administrative law judges, too. So both sides use this.

I think it is unbecoming for us now to try to turn this into some kind of a political maelstrom, a political tornado, when it shouldn't be that. Let's let the law and let's let the administrative procedure do its job. Then, if corrective action needs to be taken, then it is the purview of Congress to deal with it at that time. Not now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 2 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Diverting Non-urgent Emergency Room Use: Can It Provide Better Care and Lower Costs?'' on May 11, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 10 a.m., to hold a Near Eastern and South and Central Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Human Rights and Democratic Reform in Iran.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The AT&T/T-Mobile Merger: Is Humpty Dumpty Being Put Back Together Again?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2011, at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. President, one of our greatest national priorities is ensuring that all students in all schools are in settings that are safe; classrooms that support learning; situations that ensure our children will be successful.

To be a successful student, to be a contributing citizen to our democracy, to be prepared for college and the workforce of tomorrow, our students need to be of sound mind, of sound body, and have access to resources that will support their success.

Students who travel to school safely; who attend classes in structurally sound buildings where the adults model positive teamwork and collaboration skills; where good nutrition is available and where opportunities for physical activity are available and expected; where they have a safe, supportive social environment, students who have all of these conditions in their schools will be prepared to achieve high academic standards.

In a country where almost one in every five children is obese, where thousands of students are bullied and harassed daily, and where access to high-quality mental and physical health care is limited, students must have these basic conditions for learning in order to be successful.

While the Department of Justice reports that the rate of serious incidents of school violence continue to decline, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, bullying remains a pervasive problem that affects almost one in four students each year. As

we have seen in recent times, sometimes bullying results in the worst possible tragedy, the death of a child.

Fifteen-year-old Phoebe Prince, a freshman at South Hadley High School in Massachusetts, endured nearly three months of routine torment by classmates. On January 14, 2010, Phoebe hanged herself in the stairwell of her family's home, following weeks of taunting by classmates. The day before she died, she told a friend: ``School has been close to intolerable lately.'' In California, thirteen-year-old Seth Walsh committed suicide this past October because of the bullying he experienced in his school. We need to have the expectations in all of our schools that all students will be valued and all students will have a safe haven to learn and achieve. In New York City, middle schooler Gurwinder Singh was targeted by bullies who bashed his head into a metal pole while bystanders watched, because of his Sikh religion. Luckily, Gurwinder survived, and has become an outspoken proponent of bullying prevention. We cannot stand idly by when school becomes a hostile place for kids.

Thus, today, I am introducing the Successful, Safe and Healthy Students Act. This legislation will advance student achievement and promote the positive physical, mental, and emotional health of students throughout the nation. It will help to reduce violence in schools, prevent bullying and harassment, help students make responsible choices about drugs, tobacco, and alcohol, and create the type of school environments where students can do their best work and achieve the highest possible academic outcomes, while also becoming healthy, happy and productive members of their communities.

Essential conditions for learning include schools that provide for adequate physical activity, positive mental health, and safe environments. Those conditions include physical and emotional safety for both students and school personnel and promote positive character development in our youth. Schools with the essential conditions for learning also provide for opportunities for good nutrition and healthy living, and are free of violence, harassment, bullying and other forms of interpersonal aggression. Schools that have the right conditions for learning are free of weapons and prevent the use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. And schools with good conditions for learning have positive adult role models with high expectations for students' development, conduct, and academic achievement.

For those who might be skeptical about these critical conditions for learning, we only need to look to the States and their efforts to improve school performance and accountability. Many States are moving beyond the limited measures of school performance required by No Child Left Behind and have started to collect data on school-wide factors that are associated with student success. Some of these areas include school climate, physical activity of students, and physical and emotional safety. In fact, a March 2011 report from the RAND Corporation indicated that many States are now establishing accountability systems that include school safety, school climate, family involvement, and student engagement.

This legislation will provide to each State the support necessary to measure the conditions for learning in each school in each school in the State. Resources will also be available to offer grants to school districts to establish policies and activities to improve the conditions for learning in each of their schools. This legislation gives State and local school districts the resources and opportunities to create safe, healthy schools that will enhance the academic achievement of students.

This legislation is an essential tool for our States and local schools to support students who are prepared for college, a career, and to be world-class citizens.

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