Floor Statements

I am pleased that this bill provides significant support to continue outreach and default aversion activities through the College Access Challenge Grant Program funded at $750 million, more than double the amount we have provided for these grants in years past. However, I agree that these activities are very important and we could do more to assist students.

I do.

Mr. President, each year, we set aside April 28 as Workers Memorial Day, a time to remember and honor those who have been killed or injured or have contracted a serious illness in the workplace. Since the passage of the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act four decades ago, countless lives have been saved and the number of workplace accidents has been dramatically reduced.

Yet too many workers still remain in harm's way. In 2008, over 5,200 people were killed at work in the United States and roughly 50,000 workers died from occupational diseases. Millions more were injured on the job. This means that, on an average day, 151 workers lose their lives, 14 from injuries and 137 from job-related diseases. These are workers from all walks of life--firefighters, police officers, coal miners and farmers, men and women

who are working to put food on the table to support their families and loved ones. These deaths are tragedies that can and should be prevented.

Our entire Nation mourned when we learned of the terrible tragedy that killed 29 miners in Montcoal, WV. But it is important to remember that mines aren't our only dangerous workplaces. Our Nation suffered another great loss when we learned of the 11 missing oil rig workers off the coast of Louisiana, and we still mourn the lives of those workers who died in explosions in Washington State and Connecticut earlier this year. All of these incidents could have been prevented. These terrible tragedies illustrate the dangers hardworking Americans face on the job every day, and why we need to redouble our efforts to make every workplace a safe workplace.

Every April 28, for the past 9 years, Mary Davis and her family have observed Workers Memorial Day in honor of her husband Jeff Davis, a boilermaker who was killed in a sulfuric acid tank farm explosion at a refinery in Delaware. His body was never recovered, most likely because it was dissolved in acid. The disaster also injured eight other workers and caused major environmental impact in the surrounding area. Motiva, the company that owned the refinery, pleaded guilty to discharging pollutants into the Delaware River and negligently releasing sulfuric acid into the air, both in violation of the Clean Air Act, resulting in a $10 million fine. For the same accident, OSHA initially cited three serious and two willful violations against Motiva for Jeff Davis' death. The Agency proposed a penalty of $175,000 that Motiva later was able to reduce through settlement for a total of only $132,000.

I recently spoke with Holly Shaw, a school teacher living in Pennsylvania. Her husband Scott drowned after falling into the Schuylkill River while working on two barges, helping to dredge the river. The barges had no life jackets for workers to wear, and no life preservers in the event of an accident. The two barges were connected by a series of old tires that workers had to navigate to move from barge to barge. OSHA found Armco, the company that employed Scott, had committed four serious violations and was fined $4,950. Holly later found out that Armco was given the opportunity to plead down the fine and ended up only paying $4,000 for Scott's death. It is truly shocking that the company faced such minor consequences for its appallingly inadequate safety practices.

Unfortunately, stories like Jeff Davis's and Scott Shaw's are all too common. Although a willful or repeat violation of OSHA carries a maximum penalty of $70,000 and willful violations a minimum of $5,000, most penalties are far smaller. In both cases, current penalties weren't sufficient to force recalcitrant employers to take workplace safety more seriously even when a worker is killed. To date, OSHA has cited Motiva for nearly two dozen other violations since Jeff Davis' death. In 2009, workers went on strike against the same company that leased its barge to Armco, protesting unsafe workplace practices, after a deckhand was crushed to death between two barges. As Holly said to me, ``another family suffers because of the same negligence.''

This has to change. We need to increase penalties for irresponsible employers who ignore the law, and give our federal agencies the enforcement tools they need to keep workers away from imminent danger. This week we held a hearing in the HELP Committee to explore these challenging issues. And, in the weeks ahead, I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on legislation to make our mines and all our dangerous workplaces safer.

Workplace safety is an issue that is very personal to me. My father was a coal miner, and I saw firsthand the devastating effects of the lung problems created by his work in the mines. We still have a long way to go to ensure that our sons and daughters, moms and dads, brothers and sisters all come home safe from a hard day's work, and we should not rest until workplace tragedies are a chapter in the history books, and we no longer have any need to observe a day of mourning for American workers killed on the job.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Curtis Sturgill and John Forristal of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken to introduce the Federal Response to Eliminate Eating Disorders, FREED, Act. This important bill is the first comprehensive legislative effort to confront eating disorders in the

Mr. President, today I am joining with Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken to introduce the Federal Response to Eliminate Eating Disorders, FREED, Act. This important bill is the first comprehensive legislative effort to confront eating disorders in the

Mr. President, today Americans are observing Equal Pay Day. It is the date that marks the 110 extra days that women must work into 2010 in order to equal what men earned in 2009.

In 1963, responding to the fact that the 25 million female workers in our workforce earned just 60 percent of the average pay for men, Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act to end this brazen yet widely tolerated discrimination.

Over the past 47 years, we have made progress towards the great goal of equal pay for women. But, progress has been stalled in the last decade. As we observe Equal Pay Day this year, it is a sad fact that too many women in this country still do not get paid what men do for the exact same work. On average, a woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. The circumstances are even worse for Latinas and women of color.

This is wrong and unjust. But, even more, it threatens the economic security of our families. Millions of Americans are dependent on a woman's paycheck just to get by, put food on the table, pay for child care, and deal with rising health care bills. Two-thirds of mothers bring home at least a quarter of their family's earnings. In many families, the woman is the sole breadwinner. And, during the latest economic downturn, more men have lost

jobs than women, making households even more dependent than ever on women's earnings.

The fact is, America's women are working harder than ever, but they are not being fairly compensated for their contributions to our economy. On average, women lose an estimated $700,000 over their lifetimes due to unequal pay practices, and this inequality means real hardships for their families.

And, while many factors influence a worker's earnings--including educational attainment, work experience, and family status--even when controlling for many of these variables, a substantial portion of the wage gap cannot be explained by anything but discrimination.

This issue is highlighted by the experience of Lilly Ledbetter. Over nearly two decades of work, Lilly received performance awards and outstanding reviews. Yet, late in her career, she learned, through an anonymous note, that she had been paid significantly less than men in the company doing the exact same job. When she sued, a jury reviewed the evidence and concluded that she was paid less because of her gender.

Outrageously, the Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict. They held that, even though Lilly's company, like so many others that discriminate, do so covertly and do not reveal what male workers earn, Lilly somehow should have known that she had been discriminated against within 180 days of when she was hired. Because workers like Lilly do not learn of pay inequities for years, the decision left no recourse for her and for other victims of wage discrimination.

Largely because of Lilly's determination to win justice for women, the first legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Very simply, this law reversed the Court's severely flawed decision.

We celebrate enactment of this important law, but we must recognize that it was only a first step. We need to do much more.

First, there are too many loopholes and too many barriers to effective enforcement of existing laws. That is why I strongly support the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill--sponsored by Senator Dodd, Senator Mikulski, and Representative Rosa DeLauro--would strengthen penalties for discrimination and give women the tools they need to identify and confront unfair treatment.

In January, the House of Representatives passed the bill overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. And, last month, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I chair, held a hearing on this long-overdue bill. I hope that the Senate can pass the bill and send it to the President's desk this year.

In addition, we must recognize that the problem of unequal pay goes beyond insidious discrimination. As a nation, we unjustly devalue jobs traditionally performed by women, even when they require comparable skills to jobs traditionally performed by men. Why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor? Why is a parking meter reader worth less than an electrical meter reader? To address this more subtle discrimination, last year on Equal Pay Day I introduced the Fair Pay Act to ensure that employers provide equal pay for jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.

My bill would also require employers to publicly disclose their job categories and their pay scales, without requiring specific information on individual employees. Giving people better bargaining information in the first place will help alleviate the need for costly litigation by giving employees the leverage they need to have informed pay discussions with their employers. Right now, women who suspect pay discrimination must file a lawsuit and go through a drawn out legal discovery process to find out whether they make less than the man working beside them.

With pay statistics readily available, this expensive process could be avoided. In fact, I asked Lilly Ledbetter: If the Fair Pay Act had been law, would it have prevented her wage discrimination case? She made clear that, if she had been aware of the information about pay scales that the bill provides, she would have known she was a victim of sex discrimination.

The Fair Pay Act removes many of the systematic barriers that lead to unequal pay. We must act this year to pass this important legislation to eliminate the longstanding biases that prevent America's women workers from achieving true equality in the workplace.

On this Equal Pay Day, let us recommit ourselves to eliminating discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that all Americans receive equal pay for equal work. America's working women--and the families that rely on them--deserve fairness on the job. And, let me be clear, as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I pledge to fight pay discrimination until we have achieved true equality in the workplace and there is no longer a need to observe Equal Pay Day.

I thank the Senator from Ohio. Nothing in health reform legislation would cut existing benefits or restrict the ability of private insurance carriers from covering spiritual care. Further, spiritual care will continue to be recognized as a medical expense eligible for a medical care tax deduction.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and dear friend, Senator Stabenow, for those kind words. I know no one who cares more deeply and works harder in this body for the average American family, for the workers of this country, than Debbie Stabenow. She is always there thinking about how we can make their lives better, what we can do to increase employment opportunities for working families. The fact she is here today leading the debate on extending unemployment insurance again shows her dedication to those hard-working men and women who make this country what it is. I thank the Senator from Michigan for her leadership in this crucial area.

I listened to the news this morning on the radio while driving in. The new figures are out for growth rate. We are growing now at about-- last quarter was about 5 percent. That is a turnaround from a negative 6 percent 1 year ago. Also, in unemployment, about 1 year ago we were losing jobs at 750,000 each month. It came down to only 35,000 jobs we were losing a month in the last 3 months. Every expectation is that when we end March, we will actually be in the positive once again. It shows that President Obama's economic policies and programs and what we did in the Recovery Act are working.

This is encouraging news. However, there are still almost 15 million hard-working people who lost their jobs and still struggling to find work. For these people, the recession is still a reality and recovery seems far out of reach.

There have been 6.1 million people out of work for more than half a year. That is the highest number of long-term unemployed we have had since we started keeping track in 1948. The families of these long-term unemployed are hanging by a thread. Their savings are exhausted. The unemployment benefits they get are the lifeline that helps them pay the rent, put food on the table, and keep their kids in school.

Yet in the face of this unprecedented crisis and long-term unemployment, a short-term extension of unemployment insurance is being needlessly, needlessly--I would say cruelly--obstructed in the Senate. In a real case of deja vu, a few members of the minority party are yet again stonewalling a piece of legislation that I think most people in this room and most of the people in this country would agree is vitally important.

Indeed, we know for a fact there is broad support for extending benefits in the Senate because we already passed a longer extension earlier this year. That is what is most illogical about this whole situation. We have already said we want to continue the Federal extended benefits program through the end of this year. We are now just waiting for the House to act. But now we cannot pass a 30-day extension to give the House the time they need to catch up. That does not make sense. We have already passed it for the year. We just need to fill in a small gap for 1 month. Those on the minority side are saying no.

As a result of this political gamesmanship, more than 37,000 unemployed Americans will be abruptly cut off from Federal unemployment benefits. They will lose their subsidized COBRA health insurance coverage during the first week of April. In my own State of Iowa, about 1,200 workers struggling with joblessness will see their safety net drop out from underneath them.

Blocking this bill may be a political game for some in the minority party, but it is not a game for millions of Americans who, in a matter of days, will lose their lifeline. For them, the obstruction of this bill, by just a few in this Chamber, is a personal and family crisis of the first magnitude.

It is interesting, we are going to be leaving here today. I guess this will be the last day before the Easter recess. We are out for 2 weeks. Senators will be going back to their States, probably traveling and doing different activities with their families. They will probably be having nice Easter dinners with all their families. Guess what. Not one Member of this Senate or the House will lose their pay or benefits during this period of time. How about all the people out there right now who are facing an April 5 cutoff of their unemployment benefits, a cutoff of their COBRA health benefits? These are not people who have a big bank vault with a lot of money on which they can draw. These are people hanging by a thread. They have been out of work at least for over half a year. It almost borders on the unconscionable that we would leave and not pass this bill.

I know those on the other side say we have to pay for it. I am all for paying for things, but I daresay, if a tornado wiped out a town in Oklahoma or we had a flood, as some are having in the Midwest, that wiped out a community and we needed to rush money in and rush items in to help people, would we stand here and say: Oh, no, we can't call that an emergency; that is not an emergency; somehow we have to come up with the pay-fors right away. No, it would be an emergency. We would rush in to help.

For the thousands of Americans who are going to lose their unemployment on April 5, it is an emergency. It is as if a tornado hit their home or a flood wiped out their community. It is an emergency, and we respond to emergencies with emergency spending--that is all we are saying--for 30 days, short term. This is an emergency. Yet it is being obstructed by the minority, by the Republicans. Let's say it for what it is. The Republicans are stopping this legislation. It is simply inexplicable.

There is no reason to put millions of families through the stress and uncertainty of wondering whether their benefits are disappearing. There is no reason to put States through the trouble and administrative expense that comes with a lapse in the program. That is even going to cost more money.

The flood insurance program also needs to be extended or many people purchasing a home will not be able to close on their homes, causing major economic problems for them and the home seller.

Extending benefits is good for the families, workers, the States, and our economy. Economists calculate that every $1 invested in the unemployment insurance safety net generates $1.90 in economic activity. Unemployed households spend these dollars on immediate needs--to pay the rent or medical bill, buy groceries and school supplies, or repair the family car--all economic activities that quickly inject dollars into our communities.

I call on my colleagues to stop their obstruction and do the right thing. Do the right thing. Just think about those people out there who are going to lose these benefits on April 5. I know some people say we will come back on the 12th and maybe by the 15th of the month we will be able to take care of it and we will go retroactive and fill that in. These are not people who can just go down to the bank and have a line of credit. These are people who probably in desperation--in desperation--will go down to some loan shark, get some kind of payday loan, something like that, and pay 20 percent interest on it for a couple weeks because they are that desperate.

I think it is unconscionable that we would hold this up because a few say we have to pay for it. We will pay for it. They say we cannot put this off on our children and our grandchildren. I agree, we have to be careful. We have to start getting out of the hole we are in. We are in a hole economically. Don't put it all on the backs of the few who have been out of work for so long facing getting their money cut off on April 5. Let's have a little heart. Let's have a little compassion. Let's have a little understanding of what these people are going through every day in their lives, the stress they have. Let's do the right thing and extend unemployment benefits for 1 month.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are concluding an historic week here in the Nation's Capital and in the U.S. Senate. Health reform is no longer a bill. It is the law of the land.

Just as the history books remember 1935 as the year FDR signed Social Security into law, and 1965 as the year Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law, they will now remember 2010 as the year President Barack Obama signed comprehensive health reform into law.

Of course, not only is health reform the law of the land, but, thanks to the reconciliation bill, we have also passed a landmark reform of the student lending program, permitting a major increase in Pell grants.

Appropriately, Members have cited the historic contributions of key leaders here in the Senate, including Majority Leader Reid, Senator Conrad, Senator Baucus, Senator Dodd, and, of course, for his commitment to this cause spanning decades, the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

It is also important to etch into history, in our Congressional Record, the names of Senate staff members who have done so much to get us to this point. I have often cited the old saying that ``Senators are a constitutional impediment to the smooth functioning of staff.'' We laugh at that, but we also know that there is a lot of truth. Were it not for skilled, talented, dedicated staff members, willing to spend so many evenings and weekends away from their families, we would not have arrived at the historic triumph of passing comprehensive health reform.

I am especially grateful to the extraordinary efforts of staff members on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which I chair. I would like to thank Dan Smith, Pam Smith, Michael Myers, Mark Childress, David Bowen, Jenelle Krishnamoorthy, Connie Garner, Portia Wu, John McDonough, Topher Spiro, Stacey

Sachs, Tom Kraus, Terri Roney, Craig Martinez, Taryn Morrissey, Brian Massa, Andrea Harris, Caroline Fichtenberg, Bethany Little, Luke Swarthout, David Johns, Maria Worthen, Thomas Showalter, Paulette Acevedo, Abby Bartine, Ches Garrison, Sarah Whitton, Robin Juliano, Lory Yudin, and Evan Griffis.

On the staff of Majority Leader Reid, I want to thank Gary Myrick, Kate Leone, Jason Unger, Carolyn Gluck, Jacqueline Lampert, Bruce King, David Krone, Rodell Molineaux, and Randy DeValk.

On Senator Dodd's staff, I thank Jim Fenton, Tamar Magarik Haro, Monica Feit, Brian DeAngelis, Madeline Gitomer, and Averi Pakulis.

On Senator Baucus's staff: Liz Fowler, Bill Dauster, Russ Sullivan, John Sullivan, Scott Mulhauser, Kelly Whitener, Cathy Koch, Yvette Fontenot, David Schwartz, Neleen Eisinger, Chris Dawe, and Hun Quach.

On Senator Conrad's staff: Mary Naylor, John Righter, Joe Gaeta, Robyn Hiestand, Matt Mohning, Purva Rawal, Sarah Kuehl, Joel Friedman, Jim Esquea, and Jennifer Hanson-Kilbride.

On my personal staff, I want to thank Beth Stein, Lee Perselay, Kate Cyrul, Bergen Kenny, Dan Goldberg, Lindsay Jones, and Jim Whitmire.

Mr. President, I also want to salute the great skill and professionalism of the Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin, as well as Assistant Parliamentarians Elizabeth MacDonough, Peter Robinson and Leigh Hildebrand.

In addition, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the staff of the Congressional Budget Office. They are an extremely knowledgeable and capable team, willing to work late nights and through the weekends to model and estimate the budgetary effects of the complex provisions in this bill.

Finally, I want to thank staff members in the Senate Legislative Counsel's office. They also worked many long hours to assist my HELP Committee in drafting the language and working out the technical issues in the bill.

To all of these dedicated members of our Senate family, I say thank you for your service to this body, and thank you for your selfless service to our Nation.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico for his kind words, and I thank him for the great work he did on getting us to this point.

I have a limited amount of time. I want to respond to the motion to commit made by the Senator from Tennessee yesterday that would reduce our investment in Pell grants and replace them with lower student interest rates.

We all want lower student interest rates. I am, quite frankly, surprised. I do not remember my colleague from Tennessee or other colleagues on that side of the aisle raising much cane around here when the private bankers and Sallie Mae were charging students over 20 percent interest. I did not hear a peep out of the other side.

We have capped all of those interest rates now, and we are changing this program to a direct loan program to get the middlemen out. By cutting out the middlemen, by cutting out the huge subsidies to the bankers, we are able to save over $61 billion over the next 10 years, which we are using, again, to put into the Pell Grant Program to help our students.

I said yesterday, and I repeat, think about the present status quo with this indirect guaranteed student loan program. Think about how bizarre it really is. The Federal Government pays fees to private banks to make entirely risk-free loans using taxpayer dollars. The loans, which are already guaranteed by the Federal Government, are then sold back to the Federal Government. The banks then pocket tens of billions of dollars, taxpayers' dollars, in fees and easy profits at absolutely no risk to them whatsoever. This has been going on for far too long. What this bill does is it ends that. It takes all those savings that otherwise would go to Sallie Mae and to the bankers and puts them into Pell grants.

While I would agree that our students have too much debt--way too much debt; 73 percent of 4-year college graduates in my State of Iowa graduated with debt that averaged over $28,000. The national average is $23,200 for a student graduating from college. My Iowa students have the second highest debt loads in the Nation. We are taking charge of that.

Three years ago, in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, we created the Income-Based Repayment program. What that bill said is that a borrower's payment would be capped at 15 percent of their net income after adjustments are made for living expenses

and provided total loan forgiveness after 25 years. We targeted that assistance to people who had the most difficult time repaying their loan.

More can be done. Here is what we did in this bill. Starting in 2014, a new borrower's monthly payment will be capped at 10 percent of their net income. They will be eligible for total loan forgiveness after 20 years. This is going to make college much more affordable for students even after they graduate.

If my friend from Tennessee wants to look at ways of reducing interest rates, I am all for it. Some of the biggest users of credit cards are kids in college, and look what they are being charged under credit cards--well over 20 percent, 30 percent sometimes on their credit cards. And they need that for immediate needs. If you are a parent with a kid in college, you know what I am talking about.

If you really want to help students, how about capping the interest rates they can charge on credit cards. I advocated that 20 years ago. We cap it at 12, 15 percent. They cannot charge any more than that. But I do not hear my friend from the other side talking about that. That would do more to help our students than just about anything else.

Three years ago when we cut the interest rates on student loans, we were criticized by the Republicans for not doing enough to increase Pell grants. Now we are being criticized for doing too much on Pell grants and not enough on interest rates for students. We see what this is. It is just another attempt to try to kill this reconciliation bill. That is all it is. Of course I am for lower interest rates. Who wouldn't be? Of course we are all for making the interest rates lower. When this reconciliation bill is through, I intend to come to the floor on some bill that probably will be coming up--maybe a financial bill or something like that--and I will be proposing at that time that we have lower interest rates. I ask my friend from Tennessee to join us in that effort at that time. But now is not the time and this is not the bill on which to do this.

We have to get our reconciliation bill through. Every amendment being offered by the Republicans is no more than an attempt to stop and kill this reconciliation bill, and we cannot allow that to happen.

We are going to have an education bill this year. We are going to have an elementary and secondary education bill I hope sometime this year. Higher Education Act changes are in this reconciliation bill. We are going to make sure the students have the money to go to college and Pell grants for the lowest income students. And, yes, we have capped interest rates at 6.8 percent. Could they be lower? I invite my friend, when we have another bill up that addresses this, let's see if we can get lower interest rates. I would be glad to work on that issue at that time. But right now, let's put the savings, the $61 billion that we are saving--let's do what this bill does: put it into better Pell grants so the kids can get into college in the first place.

We also put $2.5 billion into something we have neglected for far too long; that is, our Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other Minority-serving Institutions. So a big chunk of that money goes in there so they can also get a good education.

So this bill was carefully crafted. We put the money in there in the Pell grants. Let's keep them there and let's address the issue of the interest rates later on. I invite my Republican friends to join with us in doing that, especially on credit cards when that issue comes up down the pike.

Again, I urge my colleagues, when the vote comes up, to defeat the Alexander motion to commit and to keep the money in there for Pell grants.

I yield floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I thank him for all of his great leadership, and also Senator Dodd, who just spoke.

If I might just add a little historical footnote. Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee; Senator Dodd, who led the effort through the HELP Committee; myself, as now chairman of the HELP Committee; Chairman Miller on the House side, chairman of the Education and Labor Committee; and Chairman Waxman, the chairman of the House Commerce Committee--all of whom had big parts of the whole health care bill to develop--a historical footnote: We were all sworn in on the same day in January of 1975. It was a great class, and our classmates, as history would have it, survived to be able to put together this great health care bill.

I again want to thank my longtime friend and colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, for his extreme patience and his endurance in getting us to this point.

Mr. President, we are in the midst of a historic week in this Nation's Capital. Health care reform is no longer a bill; it is the law of the land. It has been signed.

Just as the history books remember 1935 as the year FDR signed Social Security into law, and 1965 as the year when Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law, they will now remember the year 2010 as the year President Barack Obama signed comprehensive health reform into law.

Each of these three bills marked a giant step forward for the American people. Each was stridently opposed by the special interests and defenders of the status quo. But in the end--in 1935, in 1965, and now in 2010--a critical mass of Senators and Representatives rose to the historic occasion. They voted their hopes, not their fears. They created a better, fairer, more compassionate America for all of our citizens.

As a Nobel Prize-winning economist recently put it, the new health reform law is a ``victory for America's soul''--a ``victory for America's soul.'' At long last, we are realizing Senator Ted Kennedy's great dream of extending access to quality, affordable health insurance to every American. We are ending the last shameful bastion of legal discrimination and exclusion in our country.

Think about it: Over the decades, we have outlawed discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. We have outlawed discrimination based on gender and religion. We have outlawed discrimination based on age and disability. But until now, it has been perfectly legal to discriminate against our fellow Americans because of illness--because of illness--and to exclude tens of millions of our citizens from decent health care simply because they could not afford insurance or afford health care--blatant discrimination.

When President Obama signed health care reform into law on Tuesday, he set in motion a series of changes that will tear down these last barriers of discrimination and exclusion. That truly is a great moral victory. It is, indeed, a victory for America's soul.

But our work is not done. The reconciliation bill now before us includes a number of modifications to strengthen the new health care reform law. It also includes reforms in the student lending program that in their own way are also profound and historic. I regret these landmark education reforms have not gotten the attention they deserve.

Senator Dodd--I just listened to his speech--outlined in great detail what these reforms are and what they will mean for our families and for our students.

This bill in front of us now eliminates $61 billion in wasteful subsidies to banks and redirects most of that money to low-income college students in the form of increased Pell grants. The status quo in student lending is a bizarre Rube Goldberg process that makes no sense. The Federal Government pays private banks to make entirely risk- free loans. The banks then sell the loans back to the Federal Government and pocket hundreds of millions of dollars in fees. This is a brazen case of corporate welfare--a huge government giveaway to bankers. This bill at long last will put a stop to it.

Mr. President, I want to state forthrightly I am not antibanker. I am not antibank. I have family members in the banking business and they do a great job. But who does not like free money? If you give the banks free money, they love it. But if we have money we want to give away, I say do not give it to the banks. Give it to low-income students so they can go to college. Banks have lots of ways in which they can make money. A low-income student has no other way to go to college but that we provide him and her access to meaningful Pell grants. I am disappointed our Republican colleagues are doing everything in their power to delay and obstruct and to kill this bill. Reportedly, they now plan to offer dozens and dozens of largely meaningless amendments to try to stretch the process out and delay a final vote. One might call this the Republican version of March madness. They know it is going to end; they just want to drag it out.

Let's be clear what is at stake. A vote against this bill is a vote against eliminating the doughnut hole in the Medicare prescription drug plan for seniors. A vote against this bill is a vote against parents' rights to keep their kids on health insurance plans until age 26. A vote against this bill is a vote against a tough new crackdown on fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid Programs. A vote against this bill is a vote against ending discrimination against rural areas in Medicare reimbursement rates. A vote against this bill is a vote against ending tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare for banks, a vote against redirecting that money to more generous Pell grants for needy college students.

I might add, a vote against this bill is a vote against a very important provision. I know an amendment has been offered to do away with what is called the CLASS Act. The CLASS Act is now the law of the land. Here is what it is. It is a voluntary program. No one has to join it. It is fiscally solvent for 75 years. All it says is that an individual during their working years can set aside some money. If they, God forbid, become disabled, they can have some income to be able to live in their own homes and not be put in a nursing home. That is the law of the land right now, and there is an amendment before us to do away with that. Over 275 groups representing people with disabilities and seniors support the CLASS Act, and we ought to keep it in the law and not repeal it with an amendment.

In short, those who are determined to kill this reconciliation bill need to decide whose side they are on. Are they going to continue their die-hard defense of the health insurance companies and the banks or are they going to stand with ordinary Americans who want access to quality, affordable, reliable health coverage and with needy young people who need Pell grants in order to go to college? It is time to choose.

We are going to have a whole series of amendments. Oh, some of them will sound nice. Some of them I would probably like to vote for myself if they weren't to this bill. But we can't be lured into this by the siren song of amendments that sound good but only have one purpose; that is, to kill this bill, to delay it, to kill it, to make sure it is not enacted into law. That is the only purpose of these amendments, make no mistake about it. So when an amendment comes up that I like and I might want to support, I will vote against it because it is that important to make sure this reconciliation bill gets passed and sent to the President for his signature.

So I say to all of my friends on this side of the aisle: Don't be lured. Don't be lured by the siren song of amendments that may sound good. Don't be afraid that somehow they are going to use it against you in a campaign. Hey, they can use anything against you in a campaign. We all know that by now. Let's stand united. Let's stand strong. Let's say no to these amendments designed only to kill this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, to defeat all of the amendments. Let's get this bill to the President, let's help our students get to college, and let's help the people of this country have better health care.

Mr. President, one of the arguments raised by my Republican colleagues regarding the landmark new health reform law just signed into law by President Obama is that it is unconstitutional. Well, I strongly disagree. One example of the strong constitutional basis of the new law is outlined by the American Constitution Society in a paper released at the end of last year.

I commend this paper to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent its conclusions be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this bill makes unprecedented investments to expand high-quality educational opportunities for all Americans. It invests in the Pell grant scholarship award, strengthens historically Black colleges and universities and other minority-serving institutions, and provides more resources to States for college access and other supports for students through the college access challenge grant program.

Further, these investments are paid for without increasing our Nation's deficit, through key reforms in the Federal student loan programs designed to provide a stronger, more reliable, and more efficient student loan system. The legislation directs more than $10 billion of the savings generated under this legislation to paying down the country's deficit.

The education provisions of this legislation will convert all new Federal student loans to the Direct Loan Program starting in July 2010, saving $61 billion over the next 10 years. These changes will also upgrade the customer service borrowers receive when repaying their loans. The legislation will also maintain jobs by ensuring a robust role for the private sector, allowing lenders and not-for-profits to contract with the Department of Education to service Direct loans.

The legislation significantly increases the Federal Pell grant award; the cornerstone of need-based Federal student assistance since its creation in 1972. Investments in this program are essential to ensuring access to higher education and making college more affordable for students and families. Both the House and Senate authorizing and appropriating committees have made significant investments in increasing the maximum Pell grant award in the past few years--32 percent since 2006. This legislation includes $36 billion to help address the Pell grant shortfall in fiscal year 2011 and to increase the maximum Pell grant to $5,550 in 2010 and to $5,975 by 2017. Starting in 2013, the grant will be linked to match rising costs of living for 5 years by indexing it to the Consumer Price Index.

The legislation includes $750 million to bolster college access and other supports for students. It will more than double funding for the college access challenge grant program to fund programs in every State that focus on informing students about college options and financing, increasing financial literacy and helping students persist from year to year and graduate.

While this legislation seeks to ensure increased access and success for all students, we intend for the Secretary to work with States to address the unique access issues faced by underserved communities, including: low-income individuals, individuals with disabilities, homeless and foster care youth, disconnected youth, nontraditional students, members of groups that are traditionally underrepresented in higher education, individuals with limited English proficiency, veterans, including those just returning from active duty, and dislocated workers.

The legislation also includes a continuation of funding for investments in historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic- serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, institutions serving Alaska and Hawaiian Natives, predominantly Black institutions, institutions serving Asian American and Pacific Islanders, and institutions serving Native Americans, first made under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, recognizing the critical role these institutions play in serving the Nation's minority populations. Minority serving institutions educate more than half 58 percent, of minority undergraduate students. While Hispanic serving-institutions (HSIs) comprise less than 8 percent of colleges and universities nationwide, they consistently graduate approximately one-third of all Hispanic students with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Similarly, even though historically Black colleges and universities only make up 3 percent of all colleges and universities they graduate 40 percent of African Americans with degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. These schools also produce 50 percent of African-American teachers and 40 percent of African-American health professionals.

Concerning the servicing contracts with eligible not-for-profit servicers, this legislation recognizes that not-for-profit servicers play a unique and valuable role in helping students in their States succeed in postsecondary education and that students should continue to benefit from the assistance provided by not-for-profit servicers.

Including more high-quality servicers in the contracting process will increase competition amongst servicers and deliver better customer service for student borrowers. Under the bill, not-for-profit servicers will be allocated a minimum of 100,000 borrower loan accounts as a starting

point. The Secretary of Education has been given the authority to increase or decrease that volume based on factors that include capacity and customer service. With sufficient loan volume and competitive servicing rates, eligible not-for-profit servicers can individually or collectively generate sufficient revenue to continue the valuable services they provide to borrowers. Because of the significant increase in loan volume as all Federal loans are moved to the Direct Loan Program, additional servicing capacity will be needed and is provided for through the contracts provision. I encourage the Secretary to implement these provisions in a timely manner so that many local not- for-profit servicers will continue to play a role in the student loan program.

The Department of Education should use the not-for-profit servicers to increase competition and quality in the student loan programs. To ensure that occurs, the Department must hold not-for-profit lenders to the same high standards of quality, performance and integrity used for other Department of Education loan servicers. This bill would require that eligible not-for-profit servicers meet the same standards for servicing Federal assets as apply to all other servicing contracts under section 456. These standards relate to: information technology security; financial reporting; collection and payment processing by the Department of the Treasury; internal control management; and, Federal accounting practices and debt management. The standards are derived from a variety of statutory and other sources of guidance, including the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3541 et seq.); the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a); the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208); the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134);the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (31 U.S.C. 3512); the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 901 et seq.); the ``Government Management Reform Act of 1994'' (P.L. 103-356); OMB Circulars A-123 (Management's Responsibility for Internal Control), A-127 (Financial Management Systems), and A-129 (Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables); and the Treasury Financial Manual.

Critical amendments will be made in America's community colleges through one additional important program that is funded in the Finance Committee's title of this bill. Community colleges serve an instrumental role in both our education and workforce systems. They provide needed postsecondary education and job training, particularly to individuals and families hardest hit by difficult economic times. This includes workers eligible for training under the Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers program, individuals who are, or may become eligible for unemployment compensation, and other individuals who have been impacted by the economic and employment crisis. To ensure that these institutions have access to the resources they need to develop and improve educational and career training programs designed to meet the needs of the workers in the affected communities, the legislation directs the Secretary of Labor to award community college career training grants especially to struggling 2-year public community colleges, (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965. As the legislation ensures that all States benefit from these resources with the inclusion of a State minimum, I also encourage that the Secretary strive to ensure a diverse geographical representation of community colleges in both urban and rural areas and to provide grants to both large and small community colleges. Finally, in order to ensure that these grants reach the institutions and students they are intended to serve, I encourage the Secretary of Labor to consult with the Secretary of Education in implementing grants provided under this program. I also remind the Secretary of Labor in implementing this program that community colleges are public 2-year degree-granting institutions of higher education that offer associate's degrees; or public 4-year institutions of higher education that offer associate's degrees, are not located reasonably close to a community college, and have an open enrollment policy for certificate or associate's degree programs; or tribal colleges or universities. This should be the universe of institutions awarded grants under the community college and career training grants program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document entitled ``Constitutional Findings regarding the Individual Responsibility Requirement.'' Furthermore, in support of this document, I commend to my colleagues a list of the following studies and papers:

--http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18- KeyIssues.pdf _http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/

content/full/27/5/w399

--http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/hidden-health- tax.pdf _http://download.journals.elsevierhealth

.com/pdfs/journals/00029343/PIIS0002934309004045.pdf

--http://www.newamerica.net/files/ NAF_CostofDoingNothing.pdf _http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/ 411603_individual_mandates.pdf _http://www.nber.org/papers/w13758.pdf _http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/

content/full/28/6/w1079

--http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30- Premiums.pdf _http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/ downloads/proj2008.pdf _http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19- Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_

Noted.pdf

The last time we took up higher education, in 2007, we lowered interest rates on student loans and crafted the interest-based repayment program. In this bill, we lower that down even more--from 15 percent to 10 percent--and we make a historic investment in Pell grants.

I would agree, I am all for lowering interest rates. I would just note that my friend from Tennessee didn't take to the floor to complain when Sallie Mae was charging over 20 percent interest on its loans to students. I didn't see that.

This amendment is not about lowering interest rates. What it is about is continuing a $61 billion subsidy to the big banks in this country. We take that money and give it to students in Pell grants.

Mr. President, I move to table the motion to commit, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this amendment is not about protecting jobs, because the bill already does that. We carve out a role for nonprofit lenders to service loans. We provided $50 million in this bill to incentivize companies--private companies, too--to keep jobs in the same towns and cities where they are now. Private lenders will continue to service the $450 billion in outstanding private loan volume.

Let me say this also about Sallie Mae. They took a couple thousand jobs out of this country. Guess what. They are bringing them back because they get to service the loans. Under Treasury rules, in order for them to service the loans, it has to be done in this country. So Sallie Mae is bringing jobs back to America.

This amendment is not about protecting jobs. It is about killing the bill and leaving the subsidies to the big banks, where they are today.

I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the CLASS Act is a voluntary, self-funded insurance program, with enrollment for people who are presently employed. There are no taxpayer dollars involved whatsoever.

The statement that the Senator referred to was made before we made sure it was paid for. It is all paid for. In fact, the Senator from New Hampshire in our committee offered an amendment that made sure it was fully funded for 75 years. The Congressional Budget Office has certified this will be solvent for 75 years. Plus, it will save taxpayers money.

By letting people put some money aside, so if they become disabled they can stay at home rather than going to a nursing home, we save Medicaid dollars. This saves taxpayer dollars from paying more into Medicaid in the future.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the Thune amendment violates section 310(D)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face not just in Iowa but all across America is preserving the character and vitality of our small towns. This is about economics, but it is also about our culture and identity. After all, you won't find the heart and soul of Iowa at Wal-Mart or Home Depot out in the strip malls. No, the heart and soul of Iowa is in our family farms and on Main Streets in small communities all across my State. That is why we need to be as generous as possible--and as creative as possible--in keeping our downtowns not just alive but thriving.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am involved in funding many hundreds of programs every year. But the Main Street Iowa program, which provides challenge grants to revitalize downtown buildings across my State, is in a class by itself. It is smart. It is effective. And it touches communities and people in very concrete ways.

For example, the citizens of Cedar Falls, IA, and their Main Street program are making efforts to improve their downtown and spur investment in the area. The Blackhawk Hotel received a Main Street Challenge Grant in 2003 to renovate its historic downtown location. The Blackhawk Hotel, listed in the National Register of Historic Places, is the oldest continuously operating hotel site in Iowa. More recently, another Challenge Grant was awarded for the Bruhn Building to help complete a forward-thinking project that will transform the designated area into a gathering space, entrance, outdoor dining room, and vertical garden on Main Street.

Thanks to these and other projects undertaken by the Cedar Falls community and business leaders, the city was recognized last month by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as one of its ``2010 Dozen Distinctive Designations.'' According to the National Trust, this distinction recognizes ``cities and towns that offer an authentic visitor experience by combining dynamic downtowns, cultural diversity, attractive architecture, cultural landscapes and a strong commitment to historic preservation, sustainability and revitalization.'' I would like to commend the excellent work of all those involved in these economic development efforts in Cedar Falls.

State and Federal programs can provide limited funding and technical assistance to progressive cities like Cedar Falls. But, as we have seen here,

success ultimately comes from local leadership, local teamwork, and homegrown ideas and solutions. When people see one of the anchors of Main Street being renovated or expanded, this can change the whole psychology of a town or community. It offers hope. It serves as a catalyst for a far-reaching ripple effect of positive changes. Cedar Falls is a shining example of the great things that are possible. So I am pleased to congratulate the Main Street program and the citizens of Cedar Falls for formulating a strategy that has reinvigorated its downtown and won accolades from an esteemed national organization like the National Trust. Their vision for a revitalized Cedar Falls is setting a terrific example for other small towns across America.

Mr. President, first, this program has never been authorized. It was only put into an appropriations bill in 2003. It was extended once.

We had the Department of Education, not this one, the previous one, and this one, do studies of whether this was successful. After 3 years, no statistically significant achievement impacts were observed for students who came from the lowest performing schools--which was the target of the program--or for students who entered the program academically behind. No achievement impacts were found for male students, and there was no statistically significant impact on math scores. Already DC parents have a choice. We have over 60 charter schools here in the District of Columbia, and it is growing all the time. So there is a choice for them to go to charter schools which are public schools open to everyone and they do not discriminate.

So, again, there is no reason for this authorization. The kids who are in those schools on those vouchers can continue. There is no problem with that. But why open it for vouchers when we have got the charter schools building up here?

I might add the chairman of the Committee also, Senator Rockefeller, opposes the amendment.

Mr. President, I understand the concerns raised by Senator Kohl, and agree that these are serious issues that need to be addressed. While I believe that short-term, targeted pension funding relief is critically important and should move as quickly as possible, I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to pursue longer term solutions addressing the many challenges facing our defined benefit pension system, including PBGC governance.

I plan to hold hearings in the HELP Committee this year addressing the state of the defined benefit system and the PBGC. I look forward to discussing with Senator Kohl the ideals and goals reflected in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Governance Improvement Act of 2009, and I thank him for bringing this important legislation to my attention. I hope that we can work collaboratively on legislation to improve the security of defined benefit pensions and the agency that insures these plans, as well as on broader initiatives to build greater retirement security for all working families.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I might ask my friend from Illinois that the order be changed a little to allow Senator Kaufman to go first, and then the Senator from Illinois go second, and then I will be glad to go third, if this would be OK with the Senator.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Harkin pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 416 are located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')