Floor Statements

Mr. President, I listened very carefully to my friend from Illinois as he went down his list. I admit it is a pretty thorough list. I may have missed one. I was conversing with another Senator briefly. Did I miss the higher education bill? The list covered everything else, I say to my friend. The Higher Education Act, which historically, I say to Senator Durbin, in 1992, Senator Kennedy, then the chair of the committee which I now chair, had done a study to see whether direct loans would be better than the indirect loans that go through banks for students going to college.

We had this study done, this pilot program. In 1993 and 1994, the pilot program ran. By 1994, the data was in. The Direct Loan Program worked well. It saved tons of money, and the schools liked it, students liked it. Our goal was that in 1995, we were going to then expand it nationwide. Of course, we know what happened in 1995. We lost the Congress. It went to the Republican side.

The Republicans did not want to expand the Direct Loan Program. They wanted to keep it going through the banks. Banks loved it. Who does not like free money? From 1995 on, we never had the opportunity to ever expand the Direct Loan Program and save all this money, until finally when Barack Obama became President and Democrats took over the House and the Senate, we were able to pass it and, as the Senator knows, we signed that into law, I think if I am not mistaken, in February of this year right after we passed the health care bill, and it was part of the health care bill.

In passing that bill, we went from indirect loans to Direct Loan Program and save $60 billion in 10 years. We took that money and put it in better Pell grants for students.

I say to my friend to illustrate, sometimes it takes a long time around here to get things done. If you persevere and the stars align right, you can get it done. It is also a way of saying to my friend from Illinois, thank you for what you did for food safety. I get a lot of accolades. I just happened to be here as chairman of the committee at the right time to get it through. Anyone who knows anything about this issue knows Senator Durbin was the Senator who got this going. I always wondered how many years ago. He said 16 years ago.

Again, there is perseverance, stick to it. When you know what is right and good for this country, do not give up and hang in there. Senator Durbin hung in there for 16 long years. We finally got the bill done and passed. I think the President will be signing it into law some time before January 5.

A lot fewer people will get sick, a lot more families will be healthy, and our food will be safer because of the efforts of Senator Durbin. I publicly thank him for all of his work on this bill.

Mr. President, time and time I have come to the floor to give a few remarks about Senators who are retiring and leaving the Senate. They all contributed in their unique way one way or the other to the Senate. Now I find myself with two left about whom I want to comment on their way out of the Senate.

In the closing days of the 111th Congress, we are saying goodbye to a number of colleagues, including a veteran Member, much respected on both sides of the aisle. I speak of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh.

I listened with great interest to Senator Bayh's eloquent farewell remarks earlier this month. The Senator was also kind enough to have them typed up and sent to our offices.

Looking back on his 12 years in this body, he spoke about times of national crisis, including after the 9/11 attacks and during the financial meltdown of 2008. He talked of a time when Senators acted not as Democrats and Republicans but as patriots concerned of doing one thing: doing what is right for the American people. He said that these times of bipartisan action were with the Senate at its very best.

For more than two decades, Senator Bayh has embodied everything that is

good about this body: a passion for public service, a sincere desire to reach out across the aisle, a great talent for forging coalitions and bringing people together, and a willingness to work long hours to accomplish important things.

As we all know, Evan is what we might call a ``son of the Senate.'' He is enormously proud to have been elected to the same seat his father Senator Birch Bayh held for two terms and who remains a great friend of mine after all these years. He has followed in his father's footsteps in fighting for quality public schools, student loans, retirement security, and giving every American access to quality, affordable health care.

In addition, he has been a leader in strengthening our Armed Forces and national security. I know that Senator Bayh takes special pride in leading the charge to provide our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with much improved mine-resistant armored vehicles.

As he leaves this body, Senator Bayh is still a young man with many chapters yet to be written in his life and career. For more than a quarter century, he has devoted himself to public service, first as Indiana's secretary of state, then as an enormously successful two-term Governor of Indiana, and, of course, since 1999 as a Senator.

I have always been a big admirer of one of his signature accomplishments as Governor, which was passing legislation creating the 21st Century Scholars Program. It is a wonderful program. Thanks to his initiative, every child in Indiana who is eligible for the free lunch program in public schools, who graduates from high school, and signs a pledge not to experiment with illegal drugs is entitled--get this--is entitled to a full tuition scholarship at the Indiana public university of his or her choice.

Over the years, many thousands of Hoosiers of modest means have been able to attend college thanks to this remarkable law. That is what I call a great--I hope my friend does not mind me saying this--populist, progressive accomplishment. It speaks volumes about Evan Bayh's priorities and values throughout his 24 years in public service.

During his two terms in this body, Senator Bayh has always faithfully served the people of Indiana and the people of the United States. I hope and expect he will pursue new avenues of public service after he leaves the Senate because our country sorely needs public servants of his caliber, intelligence, and accomplishments.

I will miss the day-to-day friendships, the counsels, the interchanges we have had together in the Senate. I wish Evan and his wonderful wife Susan and their twin sons, Beau and Nick, the very best in the years ahead.

Arlen Specter

Mr. President, I also wish to pay a farewell to another long-time legislative partner, and that is Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

I listened with great interest to Senator Specter's farewell remarks yesterday. He decried the decline of bipartisan cooperation in this body. As he put it:

In some quarters, compromising has become a dirty word.

Politics is no longer the art of the possible when senators

are intransigent in their positions.

During his remarkable 30 years in the Senate--he is the longest serving U.S. Senator in Pennsylvania's history--Arlen Specter has been admired for his fierce independence and for his willingness to cross party lines in order to accomplish big and important things for this country.

Nowhere has this been more vividly on display than in the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, on which Senator Specter and I are senior members. Before last year, when he returned to his roots as a Democrat, Arlen was the senior Republican and I was the senior Democrat on that subcommittee. Since 1989, as the majority in the Senate has gone back and forth between the two parties, we alternated as either chair or ranking member. But the transitions were seamless as we passed the gavel back and forth because Arlen and I forged an unshakable partnership.

That partnership has been grounded in our shared commitment to finding cures for diseases ranging from cancer to heart disease to Alzheimer's and in our determination to maintain the National Institutes of Health as the jewel in the crown of international biomedical research. Our proudest accomplishment was our collaboration in doubling funding for the National Institutes of Health over a 5-year period, between 1998 and 2003. Last year, we again collaborated in securing $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health in the Recovery Act, although I must be honest and give the senior Senator from Pennsylvania the lion's share of credit for that accomplishment.

I say without fear of contradiction that there has been no Member of Congress in the Senate or the House who has championed NIH as passionately and relentlessly and successfully as Senator Arlen Specter. Indeed, at times, in my role when I was chair of the Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee, I have had to remind Arlen that there were other programs besides the NIH in our appropriations bill. In fairness, Senator Specter has also fought passionately to increase funding for public schools and to increase access to higher education, but there is no question that his great passion, his living legacy has been the National Institutes of Health and biomedical research. Today, the prowess and excellence of the National Institutes of Health is truly a living legacy to Senator Specter, and we have countless new medical cures and therapies because of Senator Specter's long and determined advocacy.

Mr. President, I will miss my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, who has been a tremendous ally for many years. As he departs the Senate, he can take enormous pride in 30 years of truly distinguished service to the people of Pennsylvania and the United States. I wish Arlen and his wonderful wife Joan the very best in the years ahead.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and wish the occupant of the chair the best of the holiday season and a happy New Year. We will see you when we come back to the next Congress.

I yield the floor.

Russ Feingold

Madam President, although I don't have anything written, I was listening to the leader speak and the whip talk about Lula Davis and all she has done here in the Senate. I, too, wish to pay my respects and give my thanks and my best wishes to Lula Davis as she leaves the Senate.

For 30 years, she has been a loyal, hard-working, passionate advocate for the people of this country in an unelected role--a role that required her to make sure the business of the Senate was conducted. I know of no one who knows the rules and how things work and how things should go better than Lula Davis. At times, she knew everything, it seemed to me. Many times, we would go to her because we would have a bill on the floor and we would have something that would get tied up. I would be managing a bill, and things would get into a big ball of wax sometimes or seem like a big ball of string and you had to figure out how to unwind it. I would always go to Lula Davis and say: OK, how do we get out of this mess? We have an amendment on an amendment and a motion to recommit and all these things piled up. And she always knew how to do it. She always knew how to make sure the place would run.

If you ever needed advice on how to do something or accomplish something, you could go to her. Of course, sometimes she would give you advice you didn't want to hear. Sometimes you wanted to do something, and she had to be the person to say: Well, the rules just won't allow you to do that. So there were times I would get frustrated, and I would say: But I want to do this; this is for the good of the country. And Lula Davis would say: Well, Senator, you are just going to have to find some other way to do it.

So that is just my way to pay respect to a person who devoted so much of her life to this Senate. A lot of times, we find ourselves here late at night, and once in a while, I would think I was the last person to leave, but Lula was always the last person to leave and always the person--if you came in early in the day, she was the first person here. So she has really been such an integral part of the Senate, the Senate floor is going to have a vacancy without her in the future.

So to Lula Davis, I say: Thank you for so many years of friendship and

loyalty and hard work in helping to make the Senate a more efficient, compatible working environment.

I thank Lula Davis, and I wish her the best in her retirement. I hope she doesn't get too far away from the Senate and that she comes back to see us once in a while to help us untangle that ball of string, as I am sure it is bound to become tangled again sometime.

Mr. President, very shortly, the Senate will be voting on the continuing resolution that will fund the operations of our Federal Government through March--I think, if I am not mistaken, through March 4. I want to take this time to take a look at what happened recently with our appropriations bill, the so-called omnibus bill, that was defeated by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Again, without getting into who caused what and did what to whom first, which is a game we play a lot around here, the fact remains that none of our appropriations bills were passed this year, even though our subcommittees on appropriations passed out all of our bills. We passed them through the Appropriations Committee and brought them to the Senate for consideration, but they were not taken up on the floor. Again, we can go into all the reasons why yes, why no. But that is water over the dam. The fact is, they weren't; therefore, they weren't passed.

At the end of the year, a week ago, Leader Reid wanted to put together all the bills that had been passed out of committee with both Republican and Democratic support. Of the 13 bills--and I could be a little mistaken--only 1 or 2 had any minor changes or votes against them in committee. They were almost all unanimous by Republicans and Democrats.

So to keep the government going, we had this omnibus--in other words, putting all the bills together in one package and passing that. My friends objected to that. Because that was objected to, we now face having a continuing resolution to continue the funding from last year on into fiscal year 2011 until March.

When the Republicans killed this Omnibus appropriations bill last week, certain things happened. For example, they chose to close Head Start classrooms that serve 65,000 low-income children. By killing the omnibus, my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to cut childcare subsidies for 100,000 low-income working families. They rejected the opportunity to provide lifesaving drugs to people living with AIDS, who are on waiting lists for lifesaving medication. They passed on the chance to provide 4\1/2\ million more meals to seniors in need.

All of these programs would have received badly needed increases in the appropriations bill, but my friends on the other side of the aisle said no. They insisted on just keeping the present funding until March.

Here is another result of killing the omnibus: Millions of American students who receive Pell grants--low-income students--to go to college no

longer know if they will be able to afford college next year.

We cannot let that happen. The continuing resolution we will vote for in a few minutes includes a provision that would close the so-called Pell grant shortfall and ensure there is no cut to the Pell grants to our poor students.

The Pell Grant Program is the backbone of our Nation's financial aid system. More than 9 million low-income students and middle-income students use these grants toward a postsecondary education or vocational training.

People might say: Why has the Pell grant grown so much over the last few months? When the economy is bad, more people tend to go to college and more people in lower income brackets tend to go to college and try to better themselves. That means the cost of providing Pell grants goes up, even when the maximum Pell grant award a person can receive stays the same.

Right now, the maximum Pell grant award is $5,550 a year. Nearly 90 percent of the students who receive that level come from families whose annual income is less than $40,000 for a family of four. Without Pell, most of them would have no chance of receiving a postsecondary education. This is truly a program for low-income students and families seeking to better themselves.

The omnibus bill that was killed last week would have provided the additional funding to close that shortfall, to keep the maximum grant at $5,550. That was $5.7 billion. Again, that money did not just fall from the sky. Other programs across the Federal Government were cut to offset that spending. We appropriators decided that maintaining Pell was so important that it was worth reducing or eliminating other programs, which we did.

When my friends on the other side killed the omnibus, they put the Pell Grant Program in jeopardy and endangered the future of millions of disadvantaged students. According to the recent estimates from OMB, if we do not close the Pell shortfall before February, the maximum award will drop by $1,840, and the Pell grants of all those students with a family income of less than $40,000 will fall by 33 percent--from $5,550 to $3,710 next school year. An estimated 435,000 students who currently receive Pell grants would get nothing, zero. Their entire grant would be cut off. Why do I say that? Because if the award drops by $1,840, if your Pell grant was $1,800, you get nothing. So 435,000 students will get no Pell grants whatsoever. That is the situation facing students all over the country today.

We are 4 days away from Christmas. More than 9 million students who depend on Pell grants do not know if their financial aid will be drastically cut or if they will get any financial aid at all. Hopefully, in about 10 minutes, we are going to change that because I am hopeful we will all join together today in supporting this continuing resolution because as a part of the continuing resolution, we close that Pell grant shortfall so we can undo or redo what was undone by not taking up the omnibus bill.

We can keep the government running, but we can also make this fix. It is so important to do that now because of certain rules and regulations that go into effect after the first of the year that will drastically impinge on the Pell Grant Program unless we take this action today.

I hope all Republicans and Democrats will join in supporting the continuing resolution and so do more than 9 million American students who depend on Pell grants for their college education.

Again, I point out that other appropriations will not be settled even if we pass the continuing resolution today. Those decisions are kicked down the street until March 4 when the continuing resolution expires.

We are going to face a tough situation on March 4. My friends on the other side of the aisle have said that their plan is to cut nonsecurity-related appropriations, to cut everything except defense, homeland security, military construction, and VA by $100 billion. When you exclude all that and you want to cut $100 billion, that is a 21- percent cut from everything else.

Do Republicans really want to cut 21 percent from childcare subsidies for working families in this economy--a 21-percent cut? Do you really want to cut 21 percent from job training programs in this economy? Do you really want to cut 21 percent from programs that educate disadvantaged children, title I programs, in this economy? Do our friends on the other side of the aisle want to cut 21 percent from the AIDS drug assistance program? Do you want to cut 21 percent from senior meals programs? Do we want to cut 21 percent from the Social Security Administration in this economy?

That is what is coming down the pike on March 4. We kick the ball down the field a little bit, but on March 4, the battle will be joined again.

If my friends on the other side of the aisle try to decimate these programs that are so critical to the well-being of so many families in this country--children, working parents who need childcare, the elderly who rely on a lot of these meals--I had it happen in my own family. Meals on Wheels keeps people from going to the hospital, lets them stay at home and get a decent diet, senior meals programs; job training programs so people can train for new jobs--all part of getting our country back up again. If they are going to cut 21 percent from all this, I want to say there is going to be a battle. We are not going to sit back and let these programs be decimated, these programs that mean so much to so many families.

In the meantime, we have to keep the government running, and that is what the continuing resolution is all about. As I said, what is so important is to make sure the Pell grant shortfall is closed, which it is on this continuing resolution.

I urge all my colleagues to support the continuing resolution and hopefully when March 4 comes, again we can agree on a bipartisan basis not to decimate so many programs that help so many people in our country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 715, S. 3481.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a Cardin amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record, as if read.

Mr. President, with the close of the 111th Congress, the Senate will lose one of its most popular, articulate, and outspoken Members. I will lose a kindred spirit and a fellow progressive populist, Byron Dorgan, who has spent his entire four decades in elected office fighting on behalf of family farmers and ranchers, struggling small businesses, ordinary working Americans, and anyone who has been run roughshod over by big business, big banks, or big government.

Both Senator Dorgan and I are proud of our roots in the rural upper midwest. I was raised in Cumming, IA, population 162. He was raised in Regent, ND, population 211. Byron always liked to joke that he graduated in the top 10 of his class of 9 students.

Senators on both sides of the aisle have come to respect and admire Senator Dorgan's distinctive voice here in the Senate, a voice that mixes keen intelligence with a great sense of humor, plus a gift for making his arguments with colorful, compelling stories and language. Throughout his more than four decades in public service, he has used that voice to speak out powerfully for farm country in rural America. He has fought hard for policies at the national level to give rural families a better chance at success. He has been a strong supporter of the farm bill's safety net provisions, including countercyclical support for farmers to get them through hard times, and he has been equally outspoken in championing strict limits on Federal farm payments to ensure that the lion's share goes to small family farms, not big agribusiness and absentee farm owners.

As a senior member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and chair of the Appropriations Committee's Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Senator Dorgan has always been an outspoken champion of clean, renewable, homegrown energy, including wind and solar and biofuels.

He likes to boast that North Dakota is ``the Saudi Arabia of wind.'' Well, my folks in Iowa might dispute that claim, but we get the point. Byron and I have both been strong advocates of building a nationwide distribution grid for wind- and solar-generated energy.

I wish to make just one more point about Senator Dorgan. I guess I can say this now since he is retiring and a political opponent won't be able to use it against him. Byron Dorgan is an intellectual. He has a passion for ideas and knowledge. He even writes books--actually, really good books, the kind that show up on the New York Times bestseller list. I am a great fan of his 2007 book entitled ``Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain-Dead Politics Are Selling Out America.'' If you want a blistering and I think dead-on account of the causes of the crash of 2008, read Byron's other book entitled ``Reckless! How Debt, Deregulation, and Dark Money Nearly Bankrupted America.''

I consider Byron Dorgan a great friend, a great Senator, and a great advocate for all working people in this country. He has accomplished many things in his three terms here in the Senate, but I can think of no greater accolade than to say simply that he is a good and decent and honest person with a passion for social justice and a determination to make life better for ordinary Americans.

When the 111th Congress comes to a close, of course, my friendship with Byron will continue, but I will miss his day-to-day counsel and good humor. I join with the entire Senate family in wishing Byron and Kim the best in the years ahead.

Kit Bond

Mr. President, with the retirement of Senator Kit Bond at the close of this Congress, the Senate will lose one of its most respected veteran Members, and a truly distinguished individual with a distinguished career in public service will come to an end. Of course, we would expect big things from a young man who graduated with honors from Princeton and first in his class at the University of Virginia Law School, and Kit Bond did not disappoint.

At age 30, he became assistant attorney general of Missouri, serving under former Senator John Danforth. At age 33, he was elected Governor of the State of Missouri, serving two terms. In 1986, he was elected to the Senate, where he has now served for nearly a quarter of a century.

Over the years, Kit Bond has been a great friend and a frequent collaborator, especially on the Appropriations Committee. For example, in 1993, when the Midwest was devastated by historic floods, Senator Bond was the senior appropriator in the minority party from the nine impacted States, and I was the senior appropriator in the majority party. We took the lead in the Senate, working together very effectively to rally Federal assistance to victims all across the stricken Midwest.

Over the years, we have worked together to improve the locks and dams along the Upper Mississippi. I can say I think we are both proud of our work in the early part of this decade, forging an agreement to authorize the modernization of five of the critical locks so that our goods can move more efficiently up and down the river. We worked very hard for about 4 years to bring together a remarkable coalition of industry and agriculture and the environmental community to make this project possible.

Senator Bond and I are members of a breed of Senators affectionately known around here as ``pavers.'' We both believe very strongly that it is a cardinal responsibility of the Federal Government to invest generously in a first-class national transportation infrastructure--the roads, the bridges, the locks, the dams, and so on--what we call the arteries and the veins of commerce.

Senator Bond and I have also collaborated frequently to boost the rural economy and improve the quality of life of the people who live in our rural communities. In particular, we have used funding through the Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee of Appropriations to approve housing for people of modest means, with a particular focus on rural areas. On this score, I would note Senator Bond was a ``compassionate conservative'' long before that term came into fashion. He cares deeply about the well-being of the less fortunate in our society, giving them both a helping hand and a hand up. In the mid-1990s, I was proud to work with Senator Bond on the first bipartisan welfare reform bill, modeled, I might say, on the very successful welfare-to-work program we had in Iowa.

Over the years, Senator Bond has recruited and retained an exceptionally talented staff.

In particular, I will cite Jon Kamarck, his outstanding lead staffer for many years on the Appropriations Committee, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on many occasions. I know Senator Bond also places great store by his long-time staffer and current chief of staff, Brian Klippenstein--who, by the way, had the good sense to marry a Democrat from the State of Iowa.

Mr. President, the Senate has been fortunate to have a Senator of Kit Bond's high caliber and character for the last 24 years. In so many ways, he represents the very best in this body--a passion for public service, a willingness to reach across the aisle to get important things done, and an insistence on the highest ethical standards. He has always been determined to do the right thing for the people of Missouri and the entire United States.

For me, it has been a great honor to be his friend and colleague for the last 24 years. Our friendship, of course, will continue. And I wish Kit and Linda the very best in the years ahead.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with the close of the 111th Congress, the Senate will lose to retirement Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin--a proud progressive, a fearless reformer, and a genuine maverick in the very best sense of that much-abused term.

During his three terms in this body, Senator Feingold has been a worthy successor to another great progressive reformer from Wisconsin, Senator Robert ``Fighting Bob'' LaFollette, whose desk I am proud to occupy, here on the Senate floor--and whose portrait is displayed prominently in Senator Feingold's office.

Like Senator LaFollette, Russ Feingold knows that it is not enough to be on the side of the angels. It is not enough to have our hearts in the right place. Progressivism, by its very nature, is a fight against entrenched corporate interests, entrenched economic privilege, and entrenched political power. If we are going to succeed against these forces, we have to know how to fight, and we have to be willing to fight. And, as our colleagues here in the Senate know very well, Senator Feingold is equally skilled at building bridges across the aisle and tenaciously carrying the fight to those who oppose progressive change.

Most famously, we witnessed these talents during Senator Feingold's relentless campaign to pass the landmark 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold law. Senator Feingold and his legislative partner, Senator John McCain, championed this legislation for nearly 2 years, overcoming stiff resistance from both parties, as well as from powerful interests outside the Senate. They faced countless obstacles but refused to give up. They won.

Again, in 2007, in the wake of the Abramoff scandals, Senator Feingold played the key role in pushing through the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, a tough ethics and lobbying reform bill, which included stringent disclosure requirements and a crack-down on abusive practices by lobbyists.

As chair of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee, Senator Feingold cast the Senate's lone vote against the USA PATRIOT Act.

For nearly two decades in this body, Senator Feingold has been an outspoken champion of working Americans--fighting for safer workplaces, the right to organize, stronger public schools, better access to higher education and health care. He has always stood up for Wisconsin's family farmers and rural communities.

Senator Feingold has accomplished important and even historic things during his tenure as U.S. Senator. But, in my book, the highest accolade is simply that Russ Feingold is a good and decent person, with a passion for fairness, social justice, and honest government.

For me, it has been a great honor to be his friend and colleague for the last 18 years. Our friendship, of course, will continue--as will Russ Feingold's fight for the progressive causes we both believe in.

Our great friend Paul Wellstone used to say that ``the future belongs to those with passion.'' By that definition, Russ Feingold has a wonderful future ahead of him. I join with the entire Senate family in wishing him the very best in the years ahead.

Robert Bennett

Mr. President, in these closing days of the 111th Congress, the Senate will be saying farewell to one of our most seasoned and accomplished Members, respected on both sides of the aisle, Senator Robert Bennett of Utah.

Certainly, no one in this body doubts Senator Bennett's staunch conservative values and principles, especially on fiscal and regulatory issues. But, throughout his 18 years in this body, Senator Bennett has been a consensus builder, willing to reach across the aisle in order to get important things done for the people of Utah and of the entire United States. Clearly, this thoughtfulness has caused him to lose favor with the more extreme wing of his party, for which he paid a price during the primary election this year. I know I am not alone in mourning the loss of one of the Senate's most thoughtful conservatives.

For example, he partnered with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in advocating a legislation to provide universal health insurance coverage.

And in response to the financial crisis of 2008, as a senior member of the Senate banking committee, he supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Senator Bennett was widely criticized by those on the right, as was I for the same vote by critics on the left. But he can take great pride in it, because facts are facts: the Troubled Assets Relief Program prevented a total meltdown of our financial system. And almost the entire $700 billion taxpayer investment has been--or soon will be--paid back to the Treasury. In fact, just this week, the Treasury booked a $12 billion profit on its previous $45 billion TARP investment in Citigroup.

I have been proud to call Bob Bennett my friend for the last 18 years, and I count myself fortunate to have served with him on the Appropriations Committee. He is a gentleman, a bridge-builder, a person of rock-solid character and integrity.

I join with the entire Senate family in wishing Bob and Joyce the very best in the years ahead.

blanche lincoln

Mr. President, in these closing days of the 111th Congress, the Senate will

be saying farewell to one of our most popular Members, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

During her 12 years in this body, at a time when the Senate has become increasingly partisan and ideologically divided, Senator Lincoln has charted an alternative course. She has cultivated friendships and collaborations on both sides of the aisle, and has been skilled in forging bipartisan agreements on a wide range of issues.

Last year, Senator Lincoln succeeded me as chair of the Agriculture Committee. I would note that she is the first Arkansan and the first woman to serve in that position.

She has used that position to champion causes that have been her passion for many years, including revitalizing rural communities, supporting family farmers, promoting biofuels and other forms of renewable energy, and advocating for better nutrition for our school- aged children.

Senator Lincoln is leaving the Senate at the very top of her game. Just this week, President Obama signed into law the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, the culmination of Senator Lincoln's efforts to provide justice for African-American farmers who suffered decades of discrimination in agricultural programs.

Also this week, President Obama signed into law the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act, which will become a major part of Senator Lincoln's legacy as a Senator.

When I handed over the gavel of the Senate Agriculture Committee to Senator Lincoln last year, much work had been done on the child nutrition bill but much remained to be done. Senator Lincoln did a fantastic job--a masterful job--of taking over the child nutrition authorization and shepherding it to a unanimous approval by the Senate. Thanks to her leadership, low-income children will have increased access to Federal nutrition programs, the nutritional quality of the programs will improve, and the financial foundation of the National School Lunch Program will be greatly reinforced.

Senator Lincoln also exhibited extraordinary leadership earlier this year in the Wall Street reform bill. Again, as the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, she was able to forge bipartisan consensus for strong reform of the derivatives market. Indeed, the provision she championed will help to restore integrity to the derivatives markets, it will allow companies to safely use derivatives to manage their business risk, and it will help to prevent future financial crisis. I was proud to support her in those efforts.

For the last 12 years in this body, Senator Lincoln has been a tireless advocate for the people of her State of Arkansas, for American agriculture, for rural Americans, and for families with small kids. She has been an outstanding Senator and a wonderful friend. I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in wishing Blanche and Steve and their twin boys Reece and Bennett the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague for his forbearance.

I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. President, today I have submitted a resolution honoring Robert ``Bob'' Feller, who passed away 2 days ago.

Bob Feller was a great Iowan, great baseball player, and most importantly, a great patriot.

He was born and raised in Van Meter, IA. His father ran the family farm, and his mother was a registered nurse and teacher. His father built a baseball diamond on the farm that he named ``Oak View Park.'' Feller attended Van Meter High School, where he was a starting pitcher. Feller recalled his childhood: ``What kid wouldn't enjoy the life I led in Iowa? Baseball and farming, and I had the best of both worlds.''

Bob Feller went on to have one of the greatest baseball careers ever. His career spanned 16 seasons, during which he had 2,581 strikeouts and 266 wins. He had three no-hitters and 12 one-hitters. It is no surprise that Mr. Feller was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1962, his first year of eligibility.

But, we do not just honor Feller because of his athletic achievements. We recognize him as a great American and patriot. He served our Nation in the Navy during World War II, enlisting 2 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Although he lost four baseball seasons due to his war service, he never regretted his choice.

Feller said recently, ``A lot of folks say that had I not missed those almost four seasons to World War II--during what was probably my physical prime--I might have had 370 or even 400 wins. But I have no regrets. None at all. I did what any American could and should do: serve his country in its time of need. The world's time of need. I knew then, and I know today, that winning World War II was the most important thing to happen to this country in the last 100 years.''

Mr. President, this week we lost a great American.

Mr. President, I am a strong supporter and proud co- sponsor of the DREAM Act. This narrowly tailored, bipartisan legislation, introduced in the Senate by my colleague, Senator Durbin, and supported by 40 other Senators, would allow young, undocumented immigrants who grew up in the United States to earn legal residency by obtaining a higher education or joining the military. I have cosponsored the DREAM Act for one simple reason: It will enable these young people--who find themselves undocumented in America not due to their own actions, but due to actions of their parents--to reach their potential and contribute to a stronger, more prosperous America.

This legislation has been endorsed by the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Labor, and Interior. It has been endorsed by numerous former Republican officials, including many from the Bush administration, and has been cosponsored by many of our current and former Republican colleagues here in the Senate. It is supported by colleges and universities in Iowa and across the United States, as well as religious leaders from a wide range of denominations.

The young people who would qualify under the DREAM Act came here as children. Some came here so early in their lives that they have no memory of living anywhere other than in the United States. Despite the actions of their parents, they are just as American as you and I. Their stories in letters to my office are heartbreaking. If it weren't for the actions of their parents, they would be citizens no different from our own sons and daughters.

These children graduate from high school with honors. They play on our school soccer, football, and basketball teams. They are in the Junior ROTC. They spend time with their friends--friends who may be our own sons and daughters. They want to work afterschool jobs, if they were only allowed to work legally. They want to attend college, if they were only allowed to get the student loans necessary to afford it. They want to serve our country, if only they were allowed to enlist.

Yet there are still some who wish to punish these children for the actions of their parents. They say that children who have no control over the decisions of their families must pay the same price as the adults. I am frankly at a loss as to whether there is any other crime that could be committed where an innocent child would be treated as an accessory to an adult, or where the penalty for a child with no ill intent is the same as for an informed adult.

The young men and women who would benefit from this legislation are some of the finest, most upstanding people living in the United States. With an education, they can contribute their great talents to our economy, driving innovation and creating jobs. They are committed to the country they consider home, willing to serve under the American flag, willing to fight and die for our country at a time when our military is stretched perilously thin. I want to encourage these energetic, motivated and dedicated young men and women, not maintain the status quo which casts a dark shadow over them.

I would also like to address some common misunderstandings about who would qualify to obtain legal residency under the DREAM Act. These young people would have had to come to the U.S. by the age of 15, display good moral character, pass thorough criminal and security clearances, and have lived in the United States for at least 5 years. Only those currently under 30 years of age would be eligible. Legal permanent status would not be conferred until after 10 years. They could only sponsor parents or siblings, and only do so after 12 years have passed, and only after any member of their family who has entered the United States illegally has left the United States for 10 years. Every precaution has been taken to prevent the opportunities afforded by the DREAM Act from being abused.

Those who qualify under the DREAM Act would not receive any benefits that naturally born citizens receive. They would only be eligible to apply for Federal student loans that would have to be repaid in full; they would not be eligible for in-state tuition rates or Federal education grants, such as Pell grants. They would receive no preferential treatment.

I remain committed to working with my colleagues for a comprehensive solution to our Nation's broken immigration system. We must strengthen our borders, holding employers accountable if they hire illegal workers, and craft policies that are fair to American workers and taxpayers. But in the meantime, it does not make sense to prevent this small group of young people, already present in the U.S. through no fault of their own, from contributing to our Nation's security and economy.

Mr. President, in Division H of the explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year 2011 Consolidated Appropriations Act, under the authority of the Center for Mental Health Services at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, please add Senator Begich to the list of members requesting funds for the Maniilaq Association in Kotzebue, AK, to provide suicide prevention activities in northwest Alaska.

Division G

Mr. President, for more than 50 years, the Federal Government has provided students with grants and loans to help pay for college. That is a public-private partnership between the government and the students, between our taxpayers and students. It is an investment premised on the idea that a higher education will improve life for the borrower and also will strengthen our society by giving more Americans the knowledge and skills to get better jobs and to be able to give back to their communities.

I know firsthand how higher education can transform one's life. I went to college on student loans and to law school on the GI bill. That is why I have spent my career in Congress fighting to ensure that all students who wish to learn, who wish to get a college degree, also have the opportunity to do so. I have worked on the Appropriations Committee to expand funding for Pell grants and student support programs. And now, as the HELP Committee chairman, I have worked to expand Pell grants to make sure our student loan programs are well run.

For the past 2 years, Congress has provided significant resources to help students access and finance a college education. In 2008, we increased the amount of Stafford loans that undergraduates can borrow by $2,000 a year. The Recovery Act of 2009 provided another $17 billion to the Pell grant program. The recent reconciliation law added another $36 billion to Pell grants over the next 10 years. So the Congress has made hard choices to secure these increases for financial aid programs. The money is an investment in our Nation's students and also in our country's future. For that investment to pay off, we must ensure that students are being well educated and that schools are using Federal dollars responsibly. To ensure our investment is paying off, earlier this year I initiated an oversight investigation into for-profit education companies. Education companies that make a profit for shareholders and investors are growing at an astonishing pace. Enrollments, profits, and share of the Federal financial aid budget going to those schools are skyrocketing.

In 2008, these for-profit schools accounted for 10 percent of the students enrolled in higher education, but those students received 23 percent of Federal student loans and grants and they accounted for 44 percent of the defaults. Again, for-profit schools, 10 percent of the students, got 23 percent of the Federal loans and grants and accounted for 44 percent of the defaults.

Confronted with numbers such as these, I became increasingly concerned a significant share of our Federal investment in higher education is being misused and that some companies are using the Federal aid program as a cash machine to drive up profits as their main purpose. Across the country, some higher education companies are using a high-pressure sales force, persuading consumers in search of the American dream to go deep into debt to purchase a product of often dubious value.

Default rates are sky high, taxpayer money is being squandered, top executives walking away with fortunes. You might think I am talking about the subprime mortgage industry, which came crashing down 2 years ago, because that does describe it. But what I have just described is also the situation created by many for-profit colleges. Just as in the subprime mortgage crisis, countless thousands of ordinary Americans are being harmed by the reckless pursuit of profits by a few.

This summer, I heard testimony from Ms. Yasmine Issa, a single mother of

twin girls. Two years ago, she went back to school to earn her degree in medical sonography. She went on line, typed in sonography, and found an advertisement for the Sanford-Brown Institute, part of a chain of for-profit colleges owned by Career Education Corporation, a publicly traded company. The folks at Sanford Brown sold Ms. Issa on the value of their program. They told her how it would help provide for her daughters, so she enrolled and paid out $29,000 for an 18-month program.

The recruiters at Sanford-Brown did not tell her that she could have gone to the local community college and received the same degree for $7,000. They also didn't bother to tell her that her degree at Sanford- Brown wouldn't even allow her to sit for the sonography exam. Nor did they tell her that without passing the exam, she would not be able to work as a sonographer. So after $29,000 invested, 18 months of hard work, Ms. Issa couldn't even sit for the exam.

Ms. Issa is not alone, but she and students like her are the reason I decided we in Congress need to take a closer look at this for-profit college situation. After three hearings, I believe it is an important time to report back to the Senate on what we have found to date. So today I am going to take the time to walk through the findings of each of these three hearings, talk about the problems facing these students and taxpayers, and conclude by talking about where the HELP Committee investigation is going in the coming years.

The first hearing in June asked what are for-profit colleges? We focused on this issue following dozens of troubling reports about students being ripped off by for-profit colleges. The New York Times, Bloomberg News, ``Frontline,'' even Good Housekeeping had reported extensively about the growth of federally funded, for-profit higher education corporations. Our first task was to get a sense of what these for-profit colleges were, how big they were, and how well they were serving our students. Given that these companies receive almost all of their revenue from Federal dollars, one would think all of this information would be easily available to the public and not require a congressional investigation to unearth. But, unfortunately, that was not the case.

First, what are for-profit colleges? For-profit colleges or proprietary institutions, as they are known in the law, are institutions of higher education that provide a program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. Essentially, in 1965, we recognized that career or vocational schools, as they were then known--most of them were privately owned--played a valuable role in our education system and that the people who attended the schools should be able to get financial aid to attend them. At the same time, we required these schools to demonstrate that students were being prepared for gainful employment in a recognized occupation-- something we do not require of 2- and 4-year programs at public and nonprofit schools.

Today, we find ourselves in a world where proprietary schools offer everything from basic school training to liberal arts graduate degrees, and some for-profit schools enroll not a few hundred students but in some cases a few hundred thousand students. If these schools were providing high-quality education for most of their students, those numbers would be a cause for celebration. Instead, they are a case for concern, and these concerns are longstanding.

Twenty years ago, former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia held a series of hearings looking at the for-profit sector, and because of the problems he found, he initiated a series of legislative fixes to ensure that for-profit schools were a good investment for students and taxpayers. As with many laws, 20 years has taken its toll, and those reforms have been almost completely rolled back. We find ourselves today facing some of the same problems, with few tools in place to provide genuine oversight of our taxpayers' investment.

What has not changed is that, unlike public or nonprofit schools, proprietary schools are legally bound to operate in the interest of their owners. As the companies have gotten larger, they have been transformed from mom-and-pop operations into high-growth, high- investment, big businesses. Fifteen for-profit education companies that operate 69 schools with an enrollment of 1.5 million are actually publicly traded on the New York stock exchange or on NASDAQ. Another 33 for-profit education companies operating 65 more for-profit schools are at least partially owned by private equity investors or hedge funds. The result is that the vast majority of for-profit schools have prioritized growth over education in order to satisfy the demands of their investors. In fact, growth and return on investment for shareholders is their legal obligation. So it should not surprise us that educating students is taking a backseat to just getting more bodies in the door.

For-profit colleges traded in the stock market are a relatively recent phenomenon that has created a drastically transformed landscape for us here in Congress, the legislators. As I said, in 1992--the last time Congress took a serious look at this sector under Senator Nunn-- there were no publicly traded, for-profit higher education institutions--none, zero. In 2010, 15 publicly traded institutions enrolling a million and a half students are in existence. That is just publicly traded. There are many more that are equity owned, owned by equity investors or hedge funds, which also did not exist 20 years ago.

To satisfy shareholders, publicly traded schools must constantly focus on growth, measuring up to Wall Street's laser-like attention to quarterly enrollment statistics. Publicly traded schools must also generate higher revenues while keeping down costs, including teaching costs. These schools do this by raising tuition and increasing the number of enrolled students, which in turn increases the amount of Federal student aid dollars flowing to the schools. But it does not necessarily do anything about the quality of the education received.

A focus on growth at the expense of student outcomes is not just the province of the publicly traded companies. As I said, increasingly, hedge funds and private equity firms invest in for-profit colleges and manage the business end of the operation. For example, how many people know that Goldman Sachs--yes, the same Goldman Sachs--is the owner of more than one-third of the publicly traded EDMC--that is a for-profit college--which is the operator of something called the Art Institute and Brown Mackie? These are colleges; these are for-profit schools. A vice president and a managing director of Goldman Sachs sit on the EDMC board. These firms are interested in short-term profit and have little interest in the long-term educational outcomes of the students attending the schools.

It certainly is not clear to the students that the school is owned by a bunch of Wall Street investors. I had this chart printed. These are not all of them, but these are for-profit schools owned by private equity and hedge funds that we were able to come up with. How many students at Rasmussen College or Morrison University or the Institute for Business and Technology or Beckfield College or Chancellor University or Ashworth College or Florida Coastal School of Law--how many students signing up for this know they are owned by private investors or hedge funds that operate these schools? They sound as if they are just legitimate colleges.

An estimated 1.3 out of 1.8 million students attending for-profit schools in 2008 were attending schools primarily owned by Wall Street investors. Let me repeat that. Out of 1.8 million students going to for-profit colleges in 2008, 1.3 million students were attending colleges primarily owned by Wall Street investors. Again, this landscape was not around 20 years ago. In fact, most of it was not around 10 years ago.

Here is what the hedge fund owners of Westwood College state on their Web site:

They always keep their eye on the ball of what is best for

the business over the long term.

Not the students, not the education of students, but they keep their eye on the ball of what is best for the business, the hedge fund. That is funny, I thought the ball we should be keeping our eye on is how good a job we are doing educating students with taxpayer money.

Westwood is under investigation by the attorney general in Colorado. It has had its operation shut down in Texas, and it was told not to operate online in Wisconsin. No accrediting agency seems willing to acknowledge that it accredits this school, yet Westwood College turned a profit of $46.7 million in 2009. It is owned by a hedge fund.

While we call these schools for-profits to distinguish them from public community colleges and 4-year colleges and the nonprofit universities, it is really a misnomer since they are largely federally funded through student loans, grants, and military benefits. As a group our committee looked at, these publicly traded companies receive at least 85.6 percent of their revenue from Federal dollars of one sort or another. That is for profit?

Under current law, these companies cannot get more than 90 percent of their revenue from student loans and grants. We call it the 90-10 rule. To me, that seems like a lot, but for these companies, it is not enough. According to an internal lobbying document from the Career College Association released by the New America Foundation, one of the top priorities for the for-profit college trade association is to roll back that rule and increase the amount of Federal dollars these companies can get from the government. Ninety percent is not enough. They have clearly done a good job since at least six of the companies-- Kaplan, EPCI, TUI, ACC, Remington, and Vatterott--get more than 90 percent of their revenues from the Federal Government.

You might say: Wait a second, Senator Harkin, I thought you said they were limited to 90 percent by law.

True. Here is how they get around it. The University of Phoenix, for example, in its SEC filing acknowledged it received 89 percent of its revenues from Federal financial aid programs. Document requests that we got indicate they receive an additional 1.5 percent of revenues from other Federal sources, including military benefits. That means even the largest for-profit school--Phoenix--is receiving more than 90 percent of its revenues from Federal taxpayer dollars.

Again, how do they do that? If you get military money, that is not counted in the 90 percent; that is counted in the 10 percent that is private. Let's get that again. If they enroll a military person who gets GI bill benefits and they put it into these schools, that is not counted as part of the 90 percent. That is what their nice lobbying got done for them. Some of them get more than 90 percent of their money from the Federal Government.

So, again, just looking at Phoenix, the University of Phoenix took in more than $1 billion in Pell grants last year and more than $3 billion in Federal student loans--$4 billion in revenue from American taxpayers for just one company in 1 year.

More than 93 percent of the students in these schools take out Federal student loans. The loans go to these schools. By relying so heavily on Federal subsidies, these for-profit colleges have privatized the process of collecting Federal subsidies, but they have left the students holding the bag for the cost of a subpar education at a very high price.

Of course, the term ``for-profit'' is not completely misplaced because, regardless of how poorly students perform, as long as these companies can demonstrate enrollment growth, they remain profitable. In 2009, the same 30 schools that received 86 percent of revenues from Federal dollars generated $3.5 billion in profits for the hedge funds, the equity investors, or stockholders, shareholders.

Last year, together, all the schools had a profit margin of 19 percent. How many businesses in the State of West Virginia have a profit margin of 19 percent, I ask, or Iowa? But that is the average. Some schools have profit margins of 33 percent. The highest we found was a 37-percent profit margin last year. Where did the money come from? Taxpayers. The taxpayers of America. It is not a bad deal if you can get it.

Then look at what happened with the executive salaries. That 85 to 90 percent-plus of their revenues coming in from the taxpayers really paid for some high executive salaries. BusinessWeek recently reported that the CEO of Strayer, one of these schools, was paid $41.6 million last year--that is the president of a school--26 times the highest salary paid to a nonprofit or private university president, probably more than at the University of West Virginia or Iowa or Iowa State.

Combined, the executives at the 15 publicly traded schools received $2 billion from the sale of stock over the last 7 years. Let me repeat that. Over the last 7 years, these executives who run these schools started dumping stock. They started selling all their stock back. Do you know what they got? They got $2 billion in the last 7 years from the sale of their stock.

If they loved these schools so much, you would think they would be investing the money in the schools, to help some of these students, maybe tutoring, some kind of support mechanisms for those poor students who come in who do not have an experience of going to school; that they would be doing everything they could to make sure students who came in stayed and did not drop out.

No. They sold stock and walked away with $2 billion in the last 7 years. The co-CEO of the company that owns the University of Phoenix was paid $11.3 million last year. That is more than 7 times the $1.6 million paid to the highest paid head of a nonprofit--more than 14 times the compensation paid to the president of Harvard.

Boy, they are walking away with money. Well, that was our first hearing. What are these schools? Our second hearing that we had in August, we featured testimony from the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, focused on how for-profit schools go about recruiting students. We had heard companies--these for-profit schools--complain that their rapid growth was nothing more than students voting with their feet.

Unfortunately, the GAO and our witnesses, including a former recruiter at Westwood College, I just mentioned, made clear that for- profit college growth is actually the result of an aggressive, well- funded marketing effort by the schools, including lies and deception.

Using undercover agents and hidden cameras, GAO presented a troubling picture of student recruitment. Undercover investigators from GAO visited 15 campuses of 12 companies and they found misleading, deceptive, overly aggressive or fraudulent practices at every one of those campuses, every single one.

We watched the films. We watched. They had these little hidden cameras and microphones. We watched them in our committee hearing. Startling. Startling. Students were lied to and misled about the costs of the program, about what they could expect to earn, about how many students graduated, whether their credits would transfer, and whether the program was accredited.

They were misled about whether their student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy and even were prevented from having a conversation with a financial aid officer until after they signed on the dotted line. So you sign on the dotted line. Then you get to talk to the financial aid officer.

That does not happen at West Virginia University or Iowa State. You can see the financial aid officer and see what you are eligible for before you decide to go there.

I wish to digress for a minute about these loans being dischargeable in bankruptcy. That is one thing very few of these students know. Let's face it. A lot of these students come from low-income families--and I will get to that also in a minute--and they have not probably had a good educational experience in secondary school, but they want to better themselves.

So they listen to this high-pressure sales tactic. They get these kids online and stuff and they call them on the phone and they say: Do not worry about anything. We will fill out all the paperwork. We will take care of all the paperwork, and based upon what you said, you are eligible for this much Pell grant--you will get the money--and loans and you can get these Federal loans. We will take care of all the paperwork. You do not have to worry about a thing when you sign up.

What the students do not know is that the loans they are taking out can never by discharged--never, until they die. We talked a lot about the subprime and how many people were left with houses they bought that they could not

pay for. Here is one difference. You can walk away from the house. If you buy a car and you get a loan on a car and you cannot make it, you can walk away from the car. Students cannot walk away from these debts. Once that school gets that money and they drop out, they have that debt hanging around their neck.

You know what happens--and I will get to this letter, too--these students then cannot go on to another school. They cannot get another loan. They cannot do anything until they pay that debt. The Federal Government will be after them on that debt. Even when they get Social Security, they will go after the Social Security payments.

How many students would borrow $29,000 if they knew that, if they knew that debt will be yours until you pay it off? They do not know that. They drop out of school, they borrow the money, they gave it to the school, and that is it. Not true. Schools do not inform them of this.

The committee received recruitment training manuals from several different campuses. They have one thing in common: manipulation. Get this, and this is written up. They encourage their sales staff to identify the emotional weaknesses of prospective students, to exploit the pain, to motivate students to enroll. Again, do not take it from me. A recent Business Week article described a document from Kaplan University that urged the recruiters to focus on ``the fear, uncertainty and doubt of their prospective students.''

These recruitment practices more likely characterize boiler-room sales tactics than trying to get someone a good education. These abusive recruitment practices result in students unprepared for or poorly matched to their academic program, with a high probability of dropping out, leaving school not with a degree but with a mountain of debt.

Some for-profit companies spend in excess of 30 percent of total cost just to fund an aggressive sales force, 30 percent of total cost, just in their sales force.

Those abusive practices, so widespread that GAO found them at every campus of every company it visited, are the symptoms of a very sick industry. While GAO made some minor revisions and clarifications of the long list of misleading practices it documented--and that the industry has now tried hard to use to discredit the work of the GAO--the essential finding stands; that every single school engaged in misrepresentation, deception or outright fraud.

I urge anyone interested to go to our committee Web site, the HELP Committee Web site, and listen to those GAO tapes for themselves. In fact, the 30 companies from which I requested information spent a combined $4.12 billion in marketing in fiscal year 2009, $4.12 billion they spent on marketing.

If you say: Well, what is wrong with that? Just think, 86 percent of that came from the taxpayers. Six companies: Apollo, Walden, Grand Canyon, Bridgepoint, Strayer, and ITT actually spent more than 50 percent of their revenues on a combination of marketing and profit. So you add up their marketing and their profit, over 50 percent of their revenues.

The second HELP Committee hearing made clear to me the problems of the for-profit sector cannot be chalked up to a few bad actors. The opportunity for great profits, in spite of poor student outcomes, has become the business model in this sector. I became worried this approach, characterized by aggressive recruitment, high cost, high debt, low graduation rates, was creating a vortex, sucking in even the good actors in the industry.

Think about this business model. Think about it. If you are one of these for-profit schools, you make the most money by recruiting the poorest students, and here is why. Because if you get the poorest students, they are eligible for the maximum Pell grant. You get the poorest students, they are eligible for the maximum Federal loans.

That is profit. That is profit to these companies. So that is the business model. Since they, the companies, are legally bound to try to increase their returns, either to their equity investors or hedge funds or their shareholders, they have to have this growth. So they keep aggressively recruiting more students. The poorer you are, the better they like it because it gives them more money. Then, if you drop out, it is no skin off their teeth. They do not owe you anything. So the poorer students get recruited. They do not get any support or very little, a little help. They drop out--I have a chart to show you that after a bit--and they have all this debt and the schools have all the money. That is the business model.

The HELP Committee held its third and most recent hearing in September, with a focus on answering the question: What is happening to all the students whom these schools are pushing so hard to bring in the door--the ones I just talked about.

Unfortunately, according to information provided by the 30 schools and analyzed by the HELP Committee, it appears these students are not faring very well. At the 30 companies we analyzed, 54 percent of the students who came in the door in the 2008-2009 school year had left without a degree by the following year. OK. At 30 companies we had analyzed, 54 percent of the students who came in the door that year left the following year without a degree. They vanished--54 percent, one out of every two, they left. That number is striking.

We know from the Department of Education that nearly every student at a for-profit college will take out a Federal student loan. Of course, they will get their Pell grants too. That means more than half these students are enrolling, being saddled with debt, and dropping out without a degree.

The numbers are even worse when we look specifically at students enrolled in associate's degree programs. This chart will show this. The chart shows the 10 associate's degree programs with the worst outcomes for students, these 10. The column in yellow shows the percentage of students leaving--right here. So here is the institution's total students. Here is the withdrawal rate. This is the withdrawal rate in the first year; in the first year, 84.4 percent of students from Bridgepoint who signed up dropped out in the first year. What do you think happened to their loans? What do you think happened to their Pell grants? Students get those back? Not on your life. Bridgepoint kept them, the money went to their shareholders.

In that program, Bridgepoint, 84 percent, nearly all the 7,900 students they have, left before attaining their associate's degree. I am not talking about a master's degree, I am talking about a 2-year degree. Nearly 70 percent at the second school, Lincoln, with the rest in the 60-percent range. So they had 69 percent who did not finish.

Just among those 10 schools, 375,000 students enrolled in the 2008- 2009 school year. Nearly 250,000 dropped out without a degree a year later--250,000. These are staggering numbers.

Behind these numbers are students who are fed up with the lack of help or support from the school. They can no longer justify the level of debt they are taking on because they realize the dream job the recruiter sold them on is not waiting at the end.

I should be clear, these are not the complete dropout rates. More students are actually likely to quit by the time we would actually measure that. These are students who are gone within 1 year, many of whom never even register in the Department of Education's annual enrollment count.

Guess where they are counted, though. They are counted by investors looking to value the company and measure its likely profit. So when I say all these students dropped out, that is just 1 year. How many dropped out the second year? We do not know that.

Let me focus, for a moment, on Bridgepoint. Bridgepoint operates Ashford University and is based, sort of, in Clinton, IA. A group of private equity investors purchased a small Catholic school in 2004, when it had about 375 students. In 2004, this small Catholic school in Clinton, IA, had 375 students. They transformed it into a for-profit school. It now has 67,000 students, a 17,000-percent increase in student population in 6 years, 17,000 percent.

Ashford still operates the small campus in Iowa. About 600 students go there. The other 67,000 take classes online. I, obviously, was very interested to know how the heck they can be doing such a good job for students with that kind of growth. What the data we have collected for our investigation can tell us, for the first time, is they

are not doing a very good job for their students.

Eighty-four percent of the students seeking an associate's degree and 63 percent of bachelor's degree-seeking students leave Ashford within 1 year, without finishing their programs.

But look at the growth--17,000 percent growth. This is not terribly surprising because Bridgepoint offers no tutoring or other student services. If a student starts to have difficulties at Ashford online, they have two options: talk to their part-time teacher online or ask the computer avatar, who is the online student resource center.

Should a student succeed in completing a degree at Ashford, they had best not expect a lot of help finding a job. While Bridgepoint employs 1,703 recruiters, they employ just one person to handle career planning. They employ 1,703 recruiters, and one person to handle career planning for the entire student body of 67,000 students. According to a recent study, 60 percent of all community college students need extra help to succeed in school. They need tutoring and classes to make up for what they may not have learned in middle school and high school. For-profit colleges have served a similar population with similar needs. As they often remind us, the for-profit sector serves a group of students that traditionally lack access to higher education. Their students are the ones who are the most vulnerable, the ones who didn't have parents who went to college, who didn't grow up in a fairly wealthy household. And to make it through college, they require a significant support structure that is not available at these for-profit schools.

Like Bridgepoint, schools that have large online programs seem to have particularly troubling outcomes. This becomes clear when we look at a large publicly traded school that has both a large online program and a large campus-based program for associate degree-seeking students. I am talking about a 2-year degree. We can see it on this chart.

Career Education Corporation--that is another one of these for-profit schools--has a withdrawal rate of 44 percent on their campus-based programs, and a whopping 69.5 percent in their online programs. Campus- based program withdrawal rate 44 percent; online withdrawal rate 69.5 percent. Something is very wrong here. To me, this suggests these online students are not getting the support they need. It is inexpensive for a school to enroll a student online, but to ensure those students are learning and succeeding would require a major investment that for-profit schools, obviously, are not willing to make.

What these high dropout numbers illustrate is a phenomenon called ``churn.'' That is an industry term for bringing in students, signing them up for loans and Pell grants, and then leaving them to sink or swim. Then they go out the door, and they bring in more. That is what they call churning through the students because so many students at these for-profit schools come in the door and then leave within 4 months, 5 months, 6 months. Many of these students don't even show up in the data the Department of Education collects.

At Bridgepoint, for example, on the first day of classes in the fall of 2009, there were about 48,000 students signed up. Over the next year, recruiters signed up 77,000 additional students. Let's keep these figures in mind. In the fall of 2009, 48,000 students signed up for Bridgepoint.

In the next year, they signed up 77,000 additional students. Then at the end of that school year in 2010, there were only 67,000 total students enrolled. That means the school's actual head count for that year was about 125,000 students enrolled at some point. But 58,000 students, nearly half of them, didn't stick around. They were out the door. These are the kinds of things people don't know. This is what our investigation has uncovered by getting the documentation that led us to these figures.

The picture is much the same at other for-profit schools. In fact, most schools we analyzed recruit at least the equivalent of their entire starting student population anew each year. That bears repeating. Most of the schools we analyzed recruit at least the equivalent of their entire starting student population anew every year.

This chart describes the University of Phoenix. We have all heard of them. If someone has never heard of them, they don't watch TV or read newspapers or ride a bus or anything else to see all their ads. They do a great job of advertising. At the University of Phoenix, in 2008-2009, the school started the year with 443,000 students. They ended the school year with 470,800 students, so almost a 28,000-student increase, 27,800 to be exact. They grew their enrollment by 27,800. In fact, they actually recruited and enrolled 371,700 new students in that year to get 27,800. Again, these numbers can get a little confusing. Let me try that again.

The University of Phoenix started the school year in 2008 with 443,000 students. They ended the school year with 470,800, a growth of 27,800 students. How did they get 27,800? They recruited 371,700 students just to get that 27,800. That means almost 350,000 students passed through the University of Phoenix in 2009 without anything to show for it. They came in. A lot of them gave them their Pell grants. They turned over their student loans. Then they vanished. The students got the debt and the University of Phoenix got a nice little profit. Actually, a nice big profit.

At another company, EDMC, the marketing and recruiting machine signed up 124,000 new students in the last school year. But they ended up the year with only 19,000 more students than when they started. Recruiters for these schools face the imperative of enrolling large numbers of new students each year to replace those dropping out and eventually reach the point where the number of new students is sufficient to actually cause the enrollment to grow.

That is what the shareholders demand. That is what the hedge funds who own them demand. That is what their equity investors demand. The schools may be very successful as companies, making profits for their investors and their owners and, I might say, huge compensation for their executives and their presidents, but it is hard to say they are successful as educational institutions.

(Mr. BENNET assumed the chair.)

I am delighted to yield.

I am glad the Senator asked that question. I will go over that again. There is a Federal law that says they can only get 90 percent of their revenue from Federal financial aid sources, loans or grants, Pell grants, loans, that type of thing, 90 percent. The University of Phoenix reported last year they got 89 percent of their money from the Federal Government. But here is the kicker. If you are a GI and they recruit you and you are giving them your GI bill benefits and other educational benefits you get through the military, that is not counted in the 90 percent. For some reason that is not taxpayer money. Actually, the University of Phoenix got more than 90 percent of their money from the taxpayers.

I say to the Senator, who has been a leader in this effort of looking at the for-profit industry, trying to get the facts so we can make reasonable decisions as legislators about protecting both the taxpayers' dollars and protecting students, on December 8 our committee published this report called ``Benefiting Whom, For-Profit Education Companies and the Growth of Military Education Benefits.'' I suggest that he might want to look at that. The Senator is absolutely right. More and more of this money is going to the for-profit schools.

Let me put it this way: Between $640 to $700 million in GI bill benefits went basically to public institutions, public schools--the University of Illinois, Iowa State, University of Colorado, University of Georgia--all that. About $640 to $700 million went to public schools. That supported 209,000 students. About the same amount of money from GI bill benefits went to the for-profit schools and supported 75,000 students.

Yes. That is about right.

The Senator is correct.

That is correct.

That is right.

I thank my friend from Illinois for his focus on this issue for a long time and bringing it to our attention. Again, where are we going? We have some more hearings we are going to be having after the first of the year. Then we are going to be looking at legislation we need to do. We need to take care of this.

As I said earlier, our friend and former colleague, Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, in 1992, had hearings on this very same subject, and we put in place what we thought were fixes to straighten out this industry and to make sure taxpayers' dollars were better protected. Almost all those have been done away with--the fixes that were made by Senator Nunn and this body, this Congress at that time. We have to reexamine those fixes and others again.

For example, as the Senator knows, in 1992, we put a ban on compensating employees solely for recruiting students; in other words, you could not pay recruiters for how many students they recruited.

A bounty. That was rolled back in 2001. We also had a provision that was put in the law then, that at least 50 percent of your students had to be campus based. That was done away with in 2005. So all your students can be online. Since 2005, we have seen this huge explosion in online students going to these private schools online. So those are just two of the things that have been rolled back. I think we have to reexamine that and reexamine how we better protect both taxpayers and students.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I think the Senator is being very reasonable. I think these are the minimum kinds of things we ought to do, as I said, to be stewards of the taxpayers' money, protect our veterans, and protect other students.

One of the tricks in the trade, as they say--I bet if I asked most Senators to describe a semester, what is a semester, you would think a semester goes usually from September to January, one semester; and maybe January to May is another semester; and then there is summer school. That is not it. A semester is what you make it. Some of these schools have a semester that is 5 weeks long. So if you can keep your students in for 60 percent of the semester, you keep all their money. Then they drop out, and you have the money.

This is something else we have to look at, a better definition of what the timeframes are. What do we mean by a semester? How much time is that? How much time does a student have to stay there before the school can keep the grants and keep the loans from the student? But, again, these are things I think our committee and others are going to have to wrestle with, as we go ahead on this issue.

I know others are backed up here to speak. I started a little bit late. I was supposed to start at 3:15. I think I started at 3:30, if I am not mistaken. So I will just take a few more minutes and try to close. I do not wish to keep other Senators waiting.

I, again, wish to close on this, on the cost and debt. At these for- profit schools, many students do not leave with a degree, but most leave with debt. The average student attends for about 128 days before dropping out. That is a little over 4 months. That is the average. For most schools, that is two terms. That is enough time for students to rack up thousands of dollars in debt--anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000, depending on the program and school.

That is because for-profit schools are far more expensive than comparable programs at community colleges or public universities. The average tuition for a for-profit school is about six times higher than a community college and twice as high as a 4-year public school. Average annual tuition for a for-profit school was about $14,000 in 2009, while tuition at community colleges averaged about $2,500, and instate 4-year tuition was about $7,000.

Of the 15 schools investigated by GAO, 14 had higher tuition than the

nearest public college offering a similar program. One that we looked at offered a ``computer-aided drafting certificate'' for $13,945, when the same program at a nearby community college cost $520. The cost of an associate's degree offered by the second largest for-profit is over $38,000, and a bachelor's degree can cost up to $96,500.

Again, I just referenced to the Senator from Illinois the recent study we had done regarding the GIs and what the GIs are coming out with. They are paying three, four, sometimes five times as much going to an online school as they could at a community college or a local public or even a nonprofit university.

On the placement--I know others are here, and I do not wish to again hold them up. I talked about what Senator Nunn had done back in 1992. Let me just respond on one thing on the accreditors. The Senator from Illinois mentioned accreditation. I wish to just respond to that because a lot of people think, if they are accredited, they must be all right. But here is what we found.

All institutions of higher learning are governed by a combination of the Federal Department of Education, State agencies, and private accrediting agencies, which ought to act as a safeguard against the proliferation of high-cost, low-quality educational institutions. A few States have passed strong State authorization requirements, which have made it difficult for some questionable for-profit colleges to set up shop in those States. Unfortunately, those States are the exception rather than the rule. Accrediting agencies are charged with the mission of ensuring educational quality. However, this does not happen at a lot of for-profit schools.

There are two types of accrediting agencies: the so-called national accreditors that focus on accrediting for-profit schools, and there are regional accreditors that accredit most public and nonprofit universities. Increasingly, for-profit schools are seeking regional accreditation. One particular regional accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, accredits 18 of the 24 for-profit schools that have regional accreditation and, until recently, was known as the go-to accreditor for for-profit schools.

They have a cozy relationship. We had testimony from a witness employed by one of the national higher education accrediting organizations. He testified:

Accreditors must hold institutions accountable to ensure

that only the highest level of integrity is injected into the

student recruitment and admissions process.

The same witness assured the committee that in 629 onsite evaluations of member schools over the previous 2 years, the agency did not find even a single example of ``substantial non-compliance.'' Yet this witness's organization accredits three of the schools documented by the GAO as having engaged in misleading or deceptive recruiting.

So, again, that is where we find ourselves: One-quarter of our financial aid budget is going to a sector dominated by education companies owned by investors and shareholders seeking to maximize short-term profit. Their mission is to grow and to get profits at the expense of positive student outcomes. There are virtually no legislative checks in place, though new Department of Education regulation on incentive compensation is a step forward. The current accreditation bodies in higher education are ill-equipped to deal with the size and relentlessness of the investor-owned companies. As a consequence, as I just said, we have ``for-profit'' companies financed with over 85 percent of taxpayer dollars, reaping $3.5 billion in profits, and millions of students leaving these schools with debt but no diploma.

These schools will receive more than $30 billion in Federal aid this upcoming year--$30 billion. It seems to me it is the obligation of us here and Federal regulators to provide effective government oversight and regulation of Federal financial aid dollars. The public is watching to see whether taxpayers' dollars are being used wisely and effectively. With high-cost schools, and sky-high dropout rates, with limited job placement and services, I have grave doubts that many of these for-profit schools are a good taxpayer investment.

At stake in the debate is the future of millions of Americans who are being aggressively recruited into high-cost programs of often dubious educational quality. For all these reasons--for every Yasmine Issa who has been misled or defrauded by a for-profit college--we have an obligation to make sure these schools are doing a decent job for their students. We need for-profit schools that put the interests of their students first. We need for-profit education companies that strive to serve the needs of the students they recruit and enroll. That is not always the case today. Congress and the executive branch have an obligation, I would say a moral obligation, to provide effective oversight of the for-profit sector in higher education. We owe this to the students, and we owe it to every taxpayer.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Absolutely, I will yield.

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago all 42 Republican Senators signed a letter threatening to filibuster any extension of tax cuts for middle-class Americans or any continuation of unemployment benefits unless and until the Senate agreed to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. As many have pointed out correctly, Republicans have been holding middle-class tax cuts and benefits for the unemployed hostage to an extension of tax cuts for the very rich.

Well, it appears the hostage-taking incident is nearly over. The hostages--the unemployed--will be released. The ransom will be paid. Wealthy Americans who make $1 million or more a year will receive an average tax break of more than $100,000. Indeed, in the course of negotiations to rescue the hostages, Republicans demanded and got an even more royal ransom: they demanded and got a giveaway on estate taxes that will benefit only the wealthiest one-quarter of 1 percent of the U.S. population. The heirs of a single estate worth $1 billion would save $100 million thanks to the ransom demanded by the Republicans.

Mr. President, no question, champagne corks are popping on Wall Street, and at America's most exclusive country clubs and boardrooms, the superrich and their heirs, I am sure, are planning on throwing lavish Christmas and New Year's parties. Tiffany jewelers will no doubt be looking forward to selling a record number of

$29,800 watches. This is a picture of one. Giving those making over $1 million a year more than $100,000 in tax breaks--well, they can buy this wristwatch for $29,800 advertised in the New York Times. This is made in Switzerland. Now, maybe if it was made in America, you could say: At least it was made in America. But it is not made here. This is what the very rich spend their extra $100,000 on, things like this. It doesn't help our economy.

But what about the rest of America? What about those who don't shop at Tiffany's? Is this a good deal for the American people overall? Well, I have come to the conclusion that it is not. At a time when our annual deficit is close to $1 trillion, much of it borrowed from China, at a time when the wealthy are already enjoying a huge surge in income even as middle-class incomes are stagnant, it is simply obscene to give another lavish tax cut to the top 2 percent.

Let me say what should be painfully obvious about this new bonanza for the rich: They do not need it and we can't afford it. They do not need it and we can't afford it. And it will not help the economy. In fact, in the longer term, I believe it will hurt our economy. These new tax breaks for the rich are terrible public policy.

Let me briefly mention just four reasons these tax cuts are harmful.

First, these new tax breaks will make income inequality even worse. In recent years, in the grip of the great recession, many millions of ordinary working Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, and their savings, but the wealthy have made out very, very well. Today, income inequality--inequality--in America is at an alltime high. The top 1 percent controls more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. At the same time, the bottom 90 percent holds 73 percent of all personal debt in this country. Eighty percent of all additional income earned between 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent. Let me repeat. Eighty percent of all additional income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent.

The gap grows wider.

In 2009, in the wake of the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs paid its employees an average of nearly $600,000 per person. Executives at Goldman Sachs received bonuses totaling $13 billion. So why in the world would this Congress vote to make this already extreme income inequality even worse? Why in the world would we vote to borrow tens of billions of dollars from China to make the rich even richer? This is foolish, and it is recklessly irresponsible.

The second reason why this is a bad agreement, again the distribution of these new tax cuts is radically skewed in favor of the wealthy. As I said earlier, those who earn $1 million and above would, on average, receive an annual tax break of $100,000. By contrast, an average American taxpayer earning $26,000 would receive a tax break of $670.

In 2007, the top 25 hedge fund managers in the United States took home an average income of $892 million. Yes, you heard that right. Their individual annual income averaged nearly nine-tenths of $1 billion per person. Under this agreement, each would get an income tax break worth perhaps as much as $50 million.

Reason No. 3 why this is a bad agreement: The nearly $900 billion in tax cuts in this agreement would crowd out necessary investments in priorities such as education, infrastructure, homeland security, health care, scientific research. In other words, we are eating our seed corn, borrowing money to pay for short-term tax cuts rather than for long- term investments that develop our human capital and our physical infrastructure for the future.

As a contrast, the United States right now invests about 2.4 percent of our GDP, our gross domestic product, in infrastructure. China invests almost four times our rate; 9 percent of their GDP annually goes to infrastructure. China invested $186 billion just in rail in the last 3 years. Within 2 years, they will open 42 new high-speed rail lines with trains reaching speeds of 200 miles an hour. By 2020, China plans to add 26,000 additional miles of tracks for freight and travel as well as 230,000 miles of new or improved roads and 97 new airports.

What do we have? We are borrowing money from China in order to pay for short-term exigencies at the same time China is using its wealth to invest in infrastructure so they will be more competitive in the world economy in the future. We are going to try--mark my words--we are going to be coming up with some bills to invest in highways, a new highway bill. We have a new highway bill to come up. We are going to try to invest in new highways and probably invest in other kinds of infrastructure projects. I am sure the Senator from Colorado knows how many sewer and water projects in Colorado are going underfunded right now that need to be done. I have the same in the State of Iowa.

We think about high-speed rail. I saw a recent figure that said 60 percent of all the flights that originate out of O'Hare, in Chicago, go 300 miles or less. It is overcrowded. One day of bad weather such as the other day and there are thousands of airplanes backed up all over the country. Three hundred miles? That could be high-speed rail. Right now, to go from Chicago to Detroit by rail takes you almost all day. By high-speed rail you could do it in a couple or 3 hours. Maybe you wouldn't want to take an airplane. We should have high-speed rail from Boston to Miami, from Seattle to San Diego and hubs in the Midwest from Chicago going out to Kansas City, St. Louis and Des Moines and Omaha, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati. We are not doing it.

We are borrowing money from China to pay for present exigencies, we are going into debt, and then when our bills come up to try to fund programs to build infrastructure, our Republican friends will say we can't afford it. We do not have the money. So it will crowd it out.

Why? So we can give some of the richest in our country another $100,000? For people with $1 billion estates getting an extra $100 million so they can go out and buy those $29,000 wrist watches or $2,500 cashmere scarves or whatever it might be?

If our debt continues to grow at unsustainable rates, we are going to find ourselves, very soon, in the same position as Greece, Ireland, and Spain today. We will reach a tipping point, where international bond vigilantes place big bets against the United States, shorting our debt. This would radically drive up interest rates in the United States, forcing us to make even more draconian cuts in spending in everything from education to scientific research to health care.

This may suit the agenda of the rightwing, which would be delighted to see education programs and health care programs gutted, but it would be a disaster for ordinary working Americans and for our economy as a whole.

The fourth reason why this is a bad agreement: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office ranks tax cuts for the rich as dead last among the various options for boosting the economy and creating jobs. This is hardly surprising. As I said, the wealthy are the least likely to spend their new tax cuts. They can only buy so many $29,800 wrist watches.

By contrast, virtually every dime of emergency unemployment benefits is spent on necessities such as food, rent, and transportation. Middle and lower income taxpayers are likely to spend most, if not all, of their modest tax cuts. This stimulates the economy, creates jobs, and has a positive multiplier effect across the economy. It is a cruel irony that under this agreement, benefits for the unemployed are extended for 1 year while tax cuts for the rich are extended for 2 years and are now more likely to be extended far beyond that.

If we are going to borrow additional hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign creditors, mainly China, shouldn't we at least insist the money is spent in ways that benefit our economy in the long term? If we are going to borrow the money, let's build our infrastructure so our private sector 5 years, 10 years from now will be more efficient, will be able to compete more effectively in the world economy.

I might add, these infrastructure jobs put Americans to work. It is one of the best multiplier effects of our dollars. Why is that? Easy. When you build a new school, the work has to be done locally. You can't ship the work out to India. Think about it. Most of the materials that go into a school--the bricks, the mortar, the rerods, the wallboard, the sheetrock, most of the

lighting, the conduits, the piping, switches, floor tiles, windows, doors--most of it is made in America. Most of that is made here. So when you spend $1 on something like that, the work is done locally, it helps the local economy, plus all the materials--not all but most of the materials you buy are made in America. That dollar spins around.

You give someone an extra $100,000 and they spend $29,800 on a watch. I don't think that benefits many Americans. Maybe the jewelry store, maybe Tiffany's where you buy it, they are making some. But most of that goes out of the country. If you give extra money to people to buy a new flat-screen TV--yes, there is some benefit here to the retailer that sells it, maybe the shipper that brought it in, but the majority of it goes overseas.

That is why I say, if we are going to borrow money, put it into infrastructure. It provides a lot of jobs and provides a great multiplier effect in our economy, and you get something at the end of it that is going to benefit our kids and our grandkids.

I repeat, with this agreement, we are eating our seed corn. Instead of borrowing to invest in the future, we are borrowing to pay for consumption today. Within the next 2 years, these hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars will just go poof. They will be gone with nothing to show for it--not one new highway, not one new bridge, not one new school. Our economic competitors are not making these kinds of foolish choices.

As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in his column in the Washington Post on Monday, China has doubled its investment in education, rocketing to the very top in the most recent international rankings of educational achievement. As I said, the Chinese are investing hundreds of billions of dollars to build the world's most advanced infrastructure.

According to Reuters, the Chinese Government is planning to spend 1.5 trillion over the next 5 years in seven targeted sectors--alternative energy, biotechnology, new generation information technology, high-end equipment manufacturing, advanced materials, alternative fuel cars, and energy-saving technologies. Do you know what this tax thing is going to cost us over the next 5 years? About $1 trillion. What are we going to have to show for it? Nothing.

Instead of borrowing these billions, we should use them to rebuild and modernize our crumbling infrastructure. We should use that money to invest in things such as biomedical research, renewable energy, technologies of the future, and education of our young people to perform the high-end jobs that those sectors will create. This would put millions of Americans back to work and would have huge payoffs for future generations.

The needs are enormous. A recent report determined that the current need, just for improved school infrastructure, is more than $250 billion nationwide.

EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, estimates we need to invest more than $200 billion in wastewater treatment and, as we all know, our interstate highways and many thousands of bridges are desperately in need of repair or replacement. It is simply shameful to continue to neglect these basic infrastructure investments, even as we borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for new tax cuts and consumption.

The last thing, my fifth reason for not supporting this tax package, is the 2-percent cut in Social Security taxes for 1 year--2 percent. We go from 6.2 percent down to 4.2 percent. That might sound like a good deal, put some more money in people's pockets. But why are we taking it out of the Social Security trust fund? Mark my words, a year from now-- 1 year from now, assuming this bill passes--and I guess they have the votes for it--1 year from now when we come back and we are going to want to get that back up to 6.2 percent, our Republican friends are going to say that is a tax increase, a tax increase on hard-working Americans. You are going to go from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent? People will be afraid: Oh, no, we can't raise those taxes. Thus, we will set in motion with this tax package a pressure to begin the dismantling of the Social Security trust fund.

We have not done this before. We should not be doing it now. It will come in. It will be 4.2 percent. Next year it goes back to 6.2 percent. We will be accused of raising taxes on hard-working Americans. Therefore, we need to extend it. As we extend it, that means more money will come from general revenues--will have to come from general revenues to put into the Social Security trust fund.

OK. Let me repeat this. Right now every working American puts in 6.2 percent of their income into Social Security. That is a trust fund. Now they are going to take it from 6.2 percent down to 4.2 percent, and say: OK. You are going to keep in your pocket 2 percent for 1 year.

One year from now we come in: Oh, no, we can't go back to 6.2 percent. That is an increase in taxes on working Americans.

Okay. We will extend it. How are we going to make up for that 2- percent cut? We are supposed to make up for it with general revenues. How are we going to make it up with general revenues when we are going to be arguing that the debt is so high, the deficit is so big, we have got to cut spending? So we have got to cut spending, so therefore we cannot put the money from general revenues back into Social Security.

What is the answer? Raise the retirement age on Social Security. Cut back on the benefits on Social Security. Maybe cut down on disability benefits--all kinds of things to cut down on Social Security so we do not have to take money from general revenues to put back into the Social Security trust fund. Mark my word, it is coming. It is coming.

What is it no one is talking about? First of all, there is no deficit in the Social Security trust fund. The Social Security trust fund can continue to pay out 100 percent of benefits until about 2037--about 2037. Then it can only afford to pay 75 percent of benefits--not zero but 75 percent. What could fix that? One very simple thing. It is called equity. It is called fairness. It is called justice.

Right now, if you work and you make $40,000 a year, you pay on every dollar you make at 6.2 percent into Social Security. If you make $400,000 a year, you are only paying in 6.2 percent on 25 cents on the dollar. Why is that? Because Social Security payments are capped at $106,800 a year. That means you pay 6.2 percent up to $106,800. Over that you do not pay any more into Social Security. Think of how many people in this country make $4 million a year. They pay on $106,000, a fraction of what they make. It seems to me that fairness and equity would argue that if a working person who makes $20,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 a year has to pay on every dollar into Social Security, why should not someone who is making $400,000 or $800,000 or $1 million or $4 million? Why should they not pay in? Raise that cap so that everybody pays that 6.2 percent on every dollar they make. You know what. Social Security will have no problems for the next 100 years. Well, actually it is 75 years. For 75 years no problems. Why are we not talking about that? Why are we not talking? Why are we not debating and voting on whether we should raise the cap and then we will not have to take 2 percent out of the Social Security trust fund.

Mark my words, it is coming. It is coming. The pressure is

going to be built to damage the Social Security benefits. It

is going to start about a year from now. I cannot support the

bill that is before us. It will exacerbate income inequality.

It will give tax cuts we cannot afford and they do not need

to the wealthiest people instead of investing that money in

infrastructure in the future. It will begin a process of

dismantling the Social Security trust fund. These are

misplaced priorities, bad values. It is a misguided bill that

will drive our Nation deeper into debt with too little to

show for it in the long run. I might be for going into debt

if you got something to show for it.

It is like when my wife and I got married and we bought a house. You go into debt. But I knew that if we worked hard and saved our money, we could pay off on that house and we would have something to show for it. We did not just borrow money so we could go to fancy restaurants and have nice meals or buy a very expensive car or buy nice clothes. No, put it in the house, because you know you are going to have something. The same way with infrastructure. At least if you are

going to borrow money, have something to show for it in the end. So, again, it will drive us deeper into debt, too little to show for it in the long run. That is why I am going to have to vote against this package.

Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that Kia Hamadanchy and Awatif Chafie of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my friend and colleague Senator Dodd. Throughout his career in the Senate, he has always made it a priority to protect and support America's children and families. I am delighted to reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, the Adoption Opportunity Act and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act as we celebrate the congressional legacy of the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut. Children and families will benefit from these and improvements in the system designed to prevent and serve victims of child abuse and neglect, as well as family, domestic, and dating violence.

I would also like to thank the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, for working with us and showing a true commitment to getting this done. The efforts of the Senators and their staff were invaluable.

The legislation that was just passed and is being sent to the President is a step forward in improving child safety and strengthening critical services for children and families. At a time when there is little talk of successful bipartisan effort in Congress, this legislation is a reflection of changes we are able to make on behalf of American citizens when we work together, to do better for our Nation's children and families.

The need for this reauthorization is real. In my home State of Iowa, after a 2-year drop, the rates of child abuse rose 11 percent in 2009. The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 will help communities better meet the needs of our children. This reauthorization encourages states to provide high-quality prevention services to reduce abuse and neglect, ensures that investigations of allegations protect children and reduce trauma, and directs vital resources to communities that need them most. Each of these enhancements should ultimately result in improved systems for training and supporting adults charged with identifying, preventing, and responding to reports of abuse, neglect, and maltreatment; stronger coordination among service providers; and a renewed focus on the need to respond to the conditions that lead to abuse, neglect, and maltreatment in order to prevent them from occurring.

These are important steps, but we still have a lot of work to do. Rates of child abuse and neglect are still far too high across the country. Each year, an estimated 794,000 children are victims of child abuse or neglect. In its Child Maltreatment 2008 Report on Child Abuse and Neglect, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that, each year, 141,700 children are seriously injured, 18,000 are severely disabled, and 1,760 children die as a result of abuse or neglect. Children younger than 6 years of age accounted for 76 percent of child fatalities. Babies younger than one year of age accounted for 42 percent of child fatalities. Each of these children is one too many children who have suffered.

Similarly, we cannot ignore the 1.5 million women and 900,000 men who are raped or physically assaulted by a partner every year in the United States. Last year over 247,000 victims and their children were turned away because shelters were full or programs lacked resources. The services provided for through this reauthorization are essential. In one day alone in 2009, more than 65,000 victims of domestic violence and their children received life-saving services from local domestic violence programs because of the services provided through FVPSA. By passing this reauthorization we have taken steps toward providing a better system.

I want to take a moment to mention those who have worked so hard on my staff. I would like to thank Dan Smith and Pam Smith, who do a great job on all of the undertakings of our committee. I would like to thank Bethany Little, David Johns, and Ashley Eden of my staff. David has been working on this for over 3 years; I especially appreciate his diligence and effort. I would also like to thank Senator Dodd's staff Jim Fenton and Averi Pakulis. Also, as I mentioned, this has been a bipartisan effort, and I would also like to thank Senator Enzi's staff, Beth Buehlmann and Kelly Hastings as well as David Cleary from Senator Alexander's staff. I am also grateful to Chairman Miller and Ranking Member John Kline of the House Committee on Education and Labor and their excellent staff for the impressive work they did moving this bill quickly through the House. I appreciate the assistance of Lynn Rosenthal, the White House Adviser on Violence Against Women, in improving the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. Vice President Biden has long been, and continues to be, a leader in this area and Lynn assisted him ably in this effort. This is a major undertaking, and to be able to get this kind of joint effort at time like this is a great tribute to all of those who have worked so hard. As always, we could not work without the excellent services of the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel, especially Liz King.

This is a critical step forward to ensuring the safety of America's children, youth and adults--let's keep walking forward together.

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