[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 118 (Thursday, August 5, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6853-S6855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, lately it seems that there is nothing the 
Senate can agree on. We argue on partisan lines over every issue 
imaginable.
  But I know of at least one issue that would bring every Member of the 
Senate to the floor in agreement: Pell grants.
  This is a program designed to help poor students get the education 
they need to give themselves and their families a better future. 
Millions of Americans have seen the benefits of the Federal investment 
in Pell grants first hand.
  Over the past 2 years, the Congress has provided significant 
increases in funding to the Pell grant program. We have raised the 
maximum Pell grant to an all time high of $5,550 and we set a course so 
the grants will continue to rise reaching almost $6,000 in 2017.
  I have supported those increases. The recent expansion of the Pell 
grant program is essential for our economic recovery as Americans are 
returning to college to learn new skills.
  But the investment does not come without a cost. To finance the 
higher Pell grant levels, we invested $17 billion from the Recovery Act 
and $36 billion from the recent reconciliation bill.
  And we still have a shortfall this year caused by the tremendous new 
demand for Pell grants.
  I have spoken before about my concern that increases to Federal 
student aid are diminished by the skyrocketing cost of higher education 
at many colleges and universities, but today I want to discuss a new 
threat to the Federal Pell grant program--in the form of for-profit 
colleges.
  I am worried that a portion of the investment of taxpayer funding 
into higher education may be going to waste at the hands of for-profit 
colleges.
  For-profit institutions of higher education have experienced a 
meteoric rise. Two decades ago, the phrases ``for-profit college'' or 
``proprietary school'' would have conjured up images of the beauty 
school around the corner or the trade school down the street. Most of 
those schools were small mom-and-pop operations. Some were bad apples 
that wasted taxpayer money and some provided needed training to 
students with no other opportunities, but their impact was small.
  That is no longer the case. Today, the largest recipient of Federal 
financial aid is a for-profit institution that enrolls over 450,000 
students, many of those online.
  Enrollment at for-profit colleges has grown by 225 percent over the 
past 10 years.
  The 14 publicly traded companies in the industry enrolled 1.4 million 
students as of 2008.
  Because of the high price of tuition and the active recruitment of 
low-income students, for-profit colleges receive a tremendous amount of 
Federal financial aid funding. For-profit colleges received $4.3 
billion in Pell grants in 2009.
  We also need to examine the funding that for-profit schools are 
receiving from other Federal sources.
  Along with the billions of dollars in Pell grants and Federal student 
loans, the for-profit college industry also receives significant 
funding from the Department of Defense through tuition assistance and 
from the Department of Veterans Affairs through the G.I. bill.
  Some for-profit institutions serve active-duty students and veterans 
well by offering flexible course schedules, distance learning, and 
course credit for military training.

[[Page S6854]]

  But there are also reports of for-profit colleges aggressively 
targeting military personnel. One prominent for-profit has 452 
military-focused recruiters. It is troublesome that so much money is 
spent on recruiting students whose tuition is paid by the Federal 
Government.
  The tuition payments for active military and veterans funding does 
not count towards the 90 percent Federal funding limitation, which 
makes Defense and G.I. bill funding particularly attractive to for-
profit colleges.
  Their tactics are working. Seven of the top 10 recipients of G.I. 
bill funding in the last school year were for-profit colleges.
  It is time we examined these sources of funding. This week, Senator 
Webb and I are sending letters to Secretary Gates and Secretary 
Shinseki asking some important questions about the Federal investment 
in for-profit colleges as well as the quality controls over these 
institutions.
  And students who attend for-profit colleges are more likely to borrow 
student loans than students attending public or nonprofit colleges. And 
they take out larger student loans.
  In 2008, one-quarter of graduates from for-profit schools had 
borrowed more than $40,000 to finance their education.
  There are good trade schools and for-profit colleges, and they serve 
an important purpose with job training that provides a way up the 
economic ladder.
  But that is not the case across the board. Too often, those loans and 
Pell investments are not paying off.
  For-profit schools enroll just 10 percent of all students in higher 
education, but their students use 25 percent of all Federal aid and 
represent over 40 percent of all student loan defaults.
  Students are enrolling in for-profit colleges in search of 
opportunity. At some of these schools they learn important skills, 
graduate, and move on to good careers.
  But too many students drop out or graduate only to realize that the 
education they have borrowed so heavily for has not provided them the 
skills or credentials they need to find employment.
  These students will often find their high monthly student loan 
payments impossible to meet and stop paying.
  A few weeks ago, the Chicago Tribune told the story of Denise 
Parnell. Denise is a single mother who dreams of becoming a nursing 
assistant.
  She enrolled at an Illinois for-profit college where she completed an 
8-month program that she was promised would lead to a career.
  But in June, Denise and the other students in her program learned 
that the school's program wasn't approved by the State Department of 
Public Health. Denise was not eligible to take the exam she needed to 
become a certified nursing assistant.
  Denise had wasted a year of her life in a program leading nowhere. 
And even worse, she owes more than $13,000 in student loans for her 
trouble.
  Before she enrolled at that for-profit college, I wish Denise had 
looked to her local community college.
  There, she would find many programs of study that could give her the 
skills she needs to start a new career as a health care worker. But 
community colleges are not able to compete with the marketing skills of 
for-profit colleges.
  Many for-profit colleges spend substantial sums of money on 
recruiting and marketing through television commercials, billboards, 
phone solicitation, and other direct marketing.
  In fact, many for-profit colleges spend barely half of their budget 
on education and nearly one-third on recruiting and marketing. At least 
one prominent school actually spends less on teaching than it does on 
marketing.
  This is a recipe for disaster. Low-income students come to for-profit 
colleges in droves, lured by promises of high-paying careers, flexible 
courses, and easy financial aid.
  But when they enroll, they may find that far less money is put into 
educating them than on recruiting them.
  Today, the Government Accountability Office released a report 
documenting the recruiting practices of for-profit colleges.
  Senator Harkin asked GAO to send undercover investigators to 
determine if for-profit colleges' admissions representatives were 
engaged in deceptive marketing tactics.
  GAO sent undercover applicants to 15 for-profit colleges, including 
two in Illinois.
  At every single one, they found that recruiters made deceptive or 
otherwise questionable statements.
  And at four of the schools, the for-profit college representatives 
actually encouraged fraud.
  Some of the tapes of those encounters would shock you.
  The recruiters made false claims about potential salaries, program 
duration, cost, and graduation rates. Other recruiters encouraged 
students to lie on their financial aid forms.
  In one video, the representative informs a prospective applicant that 
some graduates are making $1,000 a day as barbers in the District of 
Columbia. That would be a salary of around $250,000 per year. The 
average barber in DC makes $19,000.
  In another video, the recruiter claims that you don't have to pay 
back your student loans at all. She says that unlike a car loan, no one 
will come after you for not paying a student loan.
  In several videos, recruiters refuse to let the applicant speak to 
financial aid officers until he enrolls in the school.
  Throughout, the representatives of the for-profit colleges employ 
aggressive tactics and convey false information to prospective students 
in order to sign them up.
  Why is all this pressure placed on students? Money.
  In many for-profit schools, recruiters' salaries, bonuses, or 
promotions are determined by how many students they sign up.
  As a result, they try to bring in as many students as possible--
regardless of their ability to succeed or complete the program--and 
load them up with loans.
  Students deserve full and complete information when enrolling in a 
college and taking on large amounts of debt.
  Students should be informed about debt loads, completion rates, job 
placement rates and salaries, and accreditation information so that 
they and their families can make smart choices.
  Instead, students are being misled, misinformed, and lied to.
  Students are not the only ones being taken advantage of by the worst 
for-profit colleges. Taxpayers are on the hook as well when Pell grants 
are wasted or when student loans are defaulted on.
  When a student cannot repay his loan, the college he attended bears 
no responsibility. Instead, the taxpayers take the loss.
  Steve Eisman, profiled in the book ``The Big Short,'' has discussed 
the similarities between the subprime mortgage industry and the for-
profit college industry. Some of his predictions are startling.
  He estimates that over the next 10 years, former students of for-
profit colleges will owe $330 billion on defaulted loans and fees. 
Given our current fiscal situation, that is not a cost we can bear.
  Eisman believes that if we don't rein in this industry, we will face 
another social disaster akin to the collapse of the housing industry. I 
hope that does not come to pass.
  This is a situation that demands our attention.
  Along with several of my colleagues in the House and Senate, I've 
asked the Government Accountability Office to review the quality of 
for-profit colleges and make recommendations based on its findings.
  I commend Senator Harkin for holding oversight hearings in his 
committee on this important issue, including a hearing this week on 
marketing and recruitment by for-profit colleges. I look forward to 
working with him on legislative action.
  I also commend the administration and specifically the Department of 
Education for their engagement on this issue.
  Unfortunately for the taxpayer and for countless students, the 
previous administration loosened many regulations that have made it 
easier for abuses to occur. I am pleased to see the current 
administration back on the appropriate track. The Department of 
Education has proposed a number of new regulations that will address 
some of the abuses in the industry.
  Several of my colleagues are working with me on the President's 
Deficit Reduction Commission. One of the principles guiding our work is 
not just what we're spending, but how wisely.

[[Page S6855]]

  Does it make sense for the Federal Government to send Pell grants to 
schools that are spending more of that money on marketing than on 
education? Does it make sense for the Federal Government to guarantee 
loans to students who are given no realistic chance at the career they 
think they are training for?
  We need to look carefully at this trend in for-profit schools. If 
enrollment has increased by 225 percent over 10 years, while $4 billion 
in Federal dollars went to for-profit schools last year, and 40 percent 
of their students are defaulting on their loans . . . this may not make 
sense.

                          ____________________