[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1099-S1109]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015--MOTION TO
PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to commend both of our leaders,
Leader McConnell and Leader Reid, for coming to the floor and agreeing
to a path forward to fully fund Homeland Security, and I want to speak
for a moment about how critical this is and how really--if we cannot
get the House of Representatives to agree, if they are not willing to
move forward and support this path--we have actually not one shutdown
but the possibility of two different kinds of shutdowns that will
happen within 3 days.
I am talking about the fact there are 3 days left before the funding
for the Department of Homeland Security expires--on February 27, at the
end of the day on Friday. We are in a situation where those who protect
us from terror threats all around us will be in a situation where they
either aren't at work or are working without pay. We will be working
with pay but they won't be working with pay, which of course is an
outrageous situation for us to put them in.
Every week we know there is a new terrorist threat. That is literally
true now, and it is shocking, as we turn on the television and we read
the papers and listen to the radio. The most recent threat we know is
from al-Shabaab, a Somali terrorist group with ties to Al Qaeda. A
video appeared this last week where we know they called for an attack
at the Mall of America near Minneapolis, as well as at other shopping
centers in the United States and Canada and Great Britain.
We also know that an attack on that mall would endanger as many as
100,000 people--men, women, and children. That is how many people come
to that mall, that big mall, every single day. Al-Shabaab terrorists
have attacked a mall before so we know this is not an idle threat. In
2013, they attacked the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, where 63
innocent people were killed.
On February 14, a shooter at a synagogue in Copenhagen killed three
people. In late January, an American was 1 of 10 people killed in a
terrorist attack in Libya. Earlier in January, in Paris, an attack by a
terrorist claimed 16 lives. I could go on and on. In October alone,
gunmen attacked the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa, killing a Canadian
soldier.
Michigan has the busiest northern border crossing in the country
between Detroit and Windsor. Every day over $1 billion in goods and
people are crossing that border--every single day. We actually have
three crossings--two of the busiest in the country--and we count on
border and Customs security. We count on our Homeland Security people
to be on the job doing their job every single day.
We also count on the people at the airports--all of us. Most of us
are on planes one or two times a week. We all understand the critical
importance of the airport. And for those of us who are surrounded by
water, the Coast Guard is absolutely critical.
I could go on and on with all of the ways in which the men and women
of Homeland Security, border security, Customs, the Coast Guard, as
well as police and firefighters, our first responders, are keeping us
safe every single day.
If the House does not agree to what we are doing here, in 3 days we
will see the Department of Homeland Security shut down--an entire
infrastructure put together after 9/11, which we all worked together on
in a bipartisan way because we saw and we felt what had happened in
terms of the threats to our country and the loss of lives.
It is critical this not be just a game. This can't be just a trick,
where we are somehow voting straight up on Homeland Security funding
without other riders on immigration or other things where there are
differences with the President. If it is straight-up funding, then we
vote, and then it goes to the House and it gets completely changed
again, that is not going to work. We are going to stand with the men
and women who stand with us, put their lives on the line, and work hard
every single day to keep us safe. It is critical the House decide to
join us if in fact the Senate acts today to fully fund Homeland
Security, which I hope we will.
There is another thing I am deeply concerned about, and that is the
fact we have heard a lot of people talk about we will just do a
continuing resolution from last year. That is effectively a shutdown of
the first responders, because when we look at the list--immigration,
Customs enforcement, detention, antitrafficking, smuggling--of those
things that are funded under a continuing resolution, which is a fancy
word for last year's funding, those things don't continue.
The new grants that keep firefighters in Michigan and across the
country going--in Detroit alone we have 150 firefighters--were supposed
to start in October. Because we haven't fully funded Homeland Security,
they have been waiting. We have people who will be laid off--police
officers, firefighters in Michigan and across the country under a CR--
under a continuing resolution. It is effectively a first responders
shutdown.
So that is the second shutdown I am concerned about. We could see
Customs and Border Protection unable to award new contracts for new
video surveillance. How many times do we talk about the need to protect
the borders? But if we don't fully fund Homeland
[[Page S1100]]
Security, if we do what it sounds like may happen from the House, some
short-term funding from last year, we will stop first responders, we
will stop surveillance equipment, we will stop the ability to upgrade
our Coast Guard, and we prevent and delay contracts for police and
fire.
Also without a fully funded Homeland Security, nuclear detection
equipment can't be replaced. That deals with our enemies trying to
smuggle nuclear devices or dirty bombs into this country.
And what about emergency communications? Think about the malls or
think about things such as FEMA and the unprecedented storms and snow
that we have seen in parts of our country, the cold.
The idea we would somehow not fund upgrades to emergency equipment
and effectively have a first responder shutdown is outrageous. I can't
imagine the public, and rightly so, will understand this. I certainly
don't understand it. We have all heard concerns about the Secret
Service and the ability to upgrade those operations. I could go on and
on as it relates to first responder funding.
So I am, on the one hand, pleased that it appears we may in fact have
a path forward to separate the debate on fully funding our Homeland
Security, our protections at the borders and airports, and so on, as
well as police and fire and first responders across the country from a
debate on immigration. I appreciate the differences, and we can have
that debate. I appreciate that has been proposed to be separated. But
we have to make sure there are no tricks and no doublecrosses when it
comes to the House of Representatives, because we are not going to
support an effort to go back again and hold Homeland Security funding
hostage to other policies and disagreements with the President.
Finally, let me stress if the House does less than what the Senate is
going to do on fully funding Homeland Security, they are shutting down
first responders in this country. That is what they are doing. If we
see a funding bill that has last year's numbers, they are putting in
place a shutdown of our first responders in this country with threats
all around us and new threats every day.
People in this country deserve a lot better. We can do better than
that. So I hope we will come together today to do the right thing: Fund
Homeland Security fully so our police and firefighters are available
and on the streets, and we are securing our borders and our homeland
operations. I dearly hope the House of Representatives will step up and
join us in getting this done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan
has made an eloquent speech about the importance of fully funding the
Department of Homeland Security. What is astonishing to me is that she
didn't listen to her own speech the first time the Republican majority
leader brought up the House-passed bill to fully fund the Department of
Homeland Security and the Democrats blocked it; and why she didn't
listen to that speech the second time the Republican majority leader
brought up the House-passed bill to fully fund the Department of
Homeland Security and the Democrats blocked it; and why she didn't
listen to that speech the third time the Republican majority leader
brought up the House-passed proposal to fully fund the Department of
Homeland Security and the Democrats blocked it; and why not the fourth
time the Republican leader brought up a bill passed by the House of
Representatives to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security and
the Democrats blocked it.
This is the fifth vote to fully fund the Department of Homeland
Security, which we want to do, and which we voted to do four times. So
let us not confuse the issue here. I am amazed that Senate Democrats
come up with this stuff on the other side. One would think they were
living in a different world than we are.
The House has passed legislation to fully fund the Department of
Homeland Security. Senate Republicans have brought up a bill to fully
fund the Department of Homeland Security four times. The Presiding
Officer knows that. Four times we voted yes and four times they voted
no. This is the fifth opportunity they will have to fully fund the
Department of Homeland Security, and I hope we can do that.
But let us not recreate events that never happened. Let us recognize
the fact that for 2 weeks Senate Republicans have been prepared to
fully fund the Department of Homeland Security and the Democrats
themselves have blocked it not once, not twice, not three times, but
four times.
Higher Education
Now, Mr. President, if I may switch gears, I came to the floor to
talk on another subject which fortunately has bipartisan support. I am
glad to speak about something like that because I think the people of
this country gave us and the Republican majority an opportunity this
year to come to Washington and shake things up, but also get things
done.
In the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we are
working hard to do just that with Senator Murray, the ranking Democrat
on the committee, and just as I worked with Senator Harkin in the last
Congress when our committee reported out 25 different pieces of
legislation which became law. So we got things done in the last
Congress, and I am fully confident that Senator Murray and I and the
other members of our committee can do that in this Congress.
That doesn't mean we agree on everything. We don't agree on a lot of
things. If you had to pick a group of liberals and a group of
conservatives and line them up, our committee would probably have as
much difference as any committee in the Congress. But we also have
about 30 percent of the jurisdiction in the Congress. That is what
Senator Ted Kennedy used to say when he was in the Senate. And we know
it is our responsibility to get things done.
We are working hard on fixing No Child Left Behind. We are working
with Secretary Burwell and the President on finding ways to move
discoveries and devices through the National Institutes of Health and
the Food and Drug Administration into the medicine cabinets.
I see the Senator from Maryland on the floor. Yesterday we worked
together to receive a report that Senator Mikulski from Maryland and I,
Senator Bennet from Colorado, and Senator Burr from North Carolina,
asked for 2 years ago to take a look at all the Federal regulations
governing our 6,000 colleges and universities and give us an assessment
of how much they cost, and how much confusion and duplication there is
since the eight different times we have reauthorized the Higher
Education Act of 1965. We asked how often we failed to weed the garden,
how often we instead just dumped new laws and regulations on top of old
ones, and to tell us exactly what to do.
Chancellor Zeppos of Vanderbilt University and Chancellor Kirwan of
the University System of Maryland gave us this report. Senator Mikulski
was there, I was there, and Senator Murray, Senator Burr, and Senator
Bennet were there. It was a very impressive report. I won't speak for
long about it because I see the Senator from Maryland would like to
speak, but I wish to take 5 minutes and say these things. It is
sometimes best to tell a story to underscore a point, and here is the
first story. Vanderbilt University hired the Boston Consulting Group to
tell the university how much it spent complying with Federal rules and
regulations for higher education in a single year.
According to the Boston Consulting Group, Vanderbilt University spent
$150 million complying with Federal rules and regulations last year.
That is 11 percent of Vanderbilt's non-hospital expenditures. That adds
up to about $11,000 of the tuition for each one of the 12,000 students
at the university. It is absolutely absurd that somehow or another that
could happen.
A second example is the student aid form 20 million families fill out
every year. It is 108 questions long. Our committee has been told that
two questions would provide all the necessary information for 95
percent of families: What is your income from two years ago and what is
your family size? A bipartisan group of Senators have introduced a bill
to do just that. This would save millions of hours and dollars across
the country.
Here is a third example. Surveys conducted by the National Academy of
[[Page S1101]]
Sciences found that 42 percent of a principal investigator's time on a
research project is spent on administrative tasks instead of research.
I asked the head of the National Academy of Sciences what would be a
reasonable time?
He said about 10 percent.
We spend 30 billion in taxpayer dollars a year on research and
development at colleges and universities. If we could save $1 billion
of that $30 billion by reducing that 42 percent to closer to 10
percent, then we could fund a 1,000 more multiyear grants to
investigate cancer research, Ebola research, and vaccines, and we
should do that.
This is an enormously promising report.
Ten years ago the Senator from Maryland and I worked on a report
called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' We asked a group of
distinguished Americans to tell us the 20 things that we might do in
Congress to help make our country more competitive in the world. They
gave us the 20 things, which formed a blueprint, and we passed most of
them and eventually funded most of them.
So I think this report we received yesterday has the opportunity to
be as important as ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which later
helped establish the America COMPETES Act. It is a blueprint for how we
can reduce overregulation, simplify rules, save money, make consumer
protection clear, keep tuition down, find more money for research, and
let colleges and universities spend their time and money educating
students instead of filling out forms.
I thank Senator Mikulski from Maryland, Senator Bennet from Colorado,
Senator Burr from North Carolina, and my partner Senator Murray on the
HELP Committee.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my opening statement from
yesterday's hearing, followed by pages 1 through 6 of the report
presented to us yesterday, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Task Force on Government Regulation of Higher Education
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
a copy of my remarks at the Senate Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee hearing earlier this week be printed
in the Record.
Task Force on Government Regulation of Higher Education
This morning we are holding our first hearing this Congress
on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act which will
focus on the final report from the Task Force on Government
Regulation of Higher Education.
Over a year ago, Vanderbilt University hired the Boston
Consulting Group to determine how much it costs the
university to comply with federal rules and regulations.
The answer: $150 million, or 11 percent of the university's
total non-hospital expenditures last year.
Vanderbilt Chancellor Nick Zeppos says that this adds about
$11,000 in additional tuition per year for each of the
university's 12,757 students.
Each year, 20 million American families fill out a
complicated, 108-question form called the FAFSA (Free
Application for Federal Student Aid) to obtain a grant or
loan to help pay for college. Several experts testified
before our committee that just two questions would tell the
Department of Education 95 percent of what it needs to know
to determine a student's eligibility for a grant or loan:
One, what is your family size? And, two, what is your family
income?
So, in January a bipartisan group of six Senators
introduced legislation to simplify the student aid
application and repayment process, including reducing the
108-question FAFSA form to just two questions. If our
legislation becomes law, then families, guidance counselors,
and admissions officers would save millions of hours.
Most important, according to financial aid expert Mark
Kantrowitz, the complicated, 108-question form discourages up
to 2 million Americans each year from applying for aid. Last
fall, the president of Southwest Tennessee Community College
in Memphis told me that the complex form turns away from his
campus 1,500 students each semester.
Tennessee has become the first state to make community
college tuition-free for qualifying students. But first, each
student must fill out the FAFSA. Now that tuition is free,
the principal obstacle for a qualified Tennessee student to
obtain two more years of education after high school is not
money: it is this unnecessarily complicated federal form. Ten
years ago, then again three years ago, surveys by the
National Academy of Sciences found that principal
investigators spend 42 percent of their time associated with
federal research projects on administrative tasks instead of
research.
I asked the head of the National Academies what a
reasonable percent of time would be for a researcher to spend
on administrative tasks. He replied: perhaps 10 percent or
even less.
How many billions could we save if we reduced the
administrative burden?
Taxpayers spend more than $30 billion a year on research
and development at colleges and universities.
This year, the average annual cost of an NIH research
project grant is $480,000. If we reduce spending on
unnecessary red tape by $1 billion, the an NIH could
potentially fund more than a thousand multi-year grants.
These should not be excused as normal, run-of-the-mill
problems of government. These examples, and others like them,
represent sloppy, inefficient governing that wastes money,
hurts students, discourages productivity, and impedes
research.
Such waste should be an embarrassment to all of us in the
federal government.
And let me make clear: let's not just blame President Obama
and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. They have contributed to
the problem, but so has every President and every education
secretary--and that includes me--since 1965 when the first
Higher Education Act was enacted.
And the list of those embarrassed should also include the
Congress of the United States for year after year adding to
and tolerating a pile of conflicting, confusing regulations.
The Higher Education Act totals nearly 1,000 pages; there
are over 1,000 pages in the official Code of Federal
Regulations devoted to higher education; and on average every
workday the Department of Education issues one new sub-
regulatory guidance directive or clarification.
No one has taken the time to ``weed the garden.''
The result of this piling up of regulations is that one of
the greatest obstacles to innovation and cost consciousness
in higher education has become--us, the federal government.
So if all of us created this mess, then it is up to all of
us to fix it.
That is why more than a year ago, four members of this
committee--two Democrats and two Republicans--asked a group
of distinguished educators to examine the current state of
federal rules and regulations for colleges and universities.
We asked them not just to tell us the problem, but to give us
specific solutions.
They have done so in a remarkable document entitled
``Recalibrating Regulation of Colleges and Universities,'' in
which they outline 59 specific regulations, requirements and
areas for Congress and the Department of Education to
consider--listing 10 especially problematic regulations.
I thank Vanderbilt University Chancellor Nick Zeppos and
University System of Maryland Chancellor Brit Kirwan for
leading the effort.
In their own words, America's 6,000 colleges and
universities live in a ``jungle of red tape'' that is
expensive and confusing and unnecessary.
The report makes clear that colleges and taxpayers expect
appropriate regulation. But neither taxpayers nor colleges
are well-served by the jungle that exists today. Consumer
information that is too complicated to understand is
worthless.
Colleges must report the amount of foreign gifts they
receive; disclose the number of fires drills that occurred on
campus. ``Gainful employment'' disclosures require 30
different pieces of information for each academic program
subject to the regulation.
When a student withdraws from college before a certain time
period, a student's federal money must be returned to the
government. This is a simple concept.
Yet the regulations and guidance implementing this are
ridiculously complex--200 paragraphs of regulatory text
accompanied by 200 pages in the Federal Student Aid handbook.
The University of Colorado reports that they have two full-
time staff devoted to this issue. One to do the calculation
and the other one to recheck the other's work. Ohio State
University estimates that it spends around $200,000 annually
on compliance for this regulation.
Institutions offering distance education are subject to an
additional set of bureaucracy that can result in additional
costs of $500,000 to a million dollars for compliance.
All of these are examples of colleges and universities
spending time and money on compliance with federal rules and
not on students.
Senator Murray and I will discuss how to develop a
bipartisan process to take full advantage of the
recommendations in this report and to include many of them in
reauthorization of the High Education Act, which we plan to
do this year.
We will schedule additional hearings to gather comment on
the report from institutions not directly involved with the
report and consumers of higher education, including parents,
students, and taxpayers.
Some of the recommendations require a change in the law.
Many can be fixed by the Department itself.
I have talked with Secretary Duncan more than once about
this effort and he is eager to do his part to solve the
problem. I look forward to working with him and with
President Obama on eliminating unnecessary red tape, saving
students money, and removing unnecessary regulatory obstacles
to innovation in the best system of higher education in the
world.
This is not a new subject for me. One of the first things I
did as a Senator was try to simplify student aid and the Free
Application
[[Page S1102]]
for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). And I'm told the net result
was the reduction of approximately 7 questions. Those have
been replaced by many more now.
Although I voted against the final reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act of 2008, I authored a provision in the
bill that required the Secretary of Education to publish a
``compliance calendar'' so schools can see all of their
deadlines.
Unfortunately, 7 years later, the Department of Education
has yet to implement this provision.
With bipartisan support and this groundbreaking report we
have today, I'm counting on this effort to get farther than
that one.
______
Executive Summary
The federal government's substantial fiscal investment in
higher education recognizes that postsecondary education is a
linchpin in the nation's social and economic strength.
Through that support, the government helps ensure that
colleges and universities continue to contribute broadly to
the fabric of American society. To ensure prudent stewardship
of federal support for higher education, the Department of
Education is charged with developing procedures to carry out
laws passed by Congress in regard to higher education and
with overseeing institutional compliance. Institutions of
higher learning recognize the important role regulations play
in the oversight of federal investments.
Over time, oversight of higher education by the Department
of Education has expanded and evolved in ways that undermine
the ability of colleges and universities to serve students
and accomplish their missions. The compliance problem is
exacerbated by the sheer volume of mandates--approximately
2,000 pages of text--and the reality that the Department of
Education issues official guidance to amend or clarify its
rules at a rate of more than one document per work day. As a
result, colleges and universities find themselves enmeshed in
a jungle of red tape, facing rules that are often confusing
and difficult to comply with. They must allocate resources to
compliance that would be better applied to student education,
safety, and innovation in instructional delivery. Clearly, a
better approach is needed.
In 2013, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators recognized
that the pending reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
(HEA) creates an opportunity to consider these issues in
depth. They established a task force of college and
university presidents and chancellors to study federal
regulation of higher education broadly and identify potential
improvements.
Looking at the landscape of regulation of colleges and
universities writ large, the Task Force on Federal Regulation
of Higher Education identified a number of challenges that
are particularly problematic. As described in Section II of
this report, we concluded that many rules are unnecessarily
voluminous and too often ambiguous, and that the cost of
compliance has become unreasonable. Moreover, many
regulations are unrelated to education, student safety, or
stewardship of federal funds--and others can be a barrier to
college access and innovation in education.
Based on extensive discussions, consultations with experts,
and site visits to campuses, the Task Force identified
specific regulations that are of major concern to higher
education institutions. Section III details those concerns,
which include problematic financial responsibility standards,
confusion and inconsistency in reporting requirements for
campus crime, overreach in authorization of distance
education programs, inefficient rules concerning verification
of financial aid eligibility, counterproductive
micromanagement of the accreditation process, and policies
that result in consumers being inundated with information of
questionable value.
The Task Force also reviewed the processes by which higher
education regulations are developed and implemented, and
offers several specific ideas for improvement. Section IV
outlines recommendations that include asking the Government
Accountability Office to review the Department of Education's
methodology for estimating institutional costs of compliance
with regulations; the creation of clear ``safe harbors'' for
institutional compliance; the recognition of ``good faith''
efforts to comply; and several proposals for better practices
by the Department.
To help policy makers think about the most effective and
efficient way to regulate higher education, the Task Force
developed the following Guiding Principles to govern the
development, implementation, and enforcement of regulations
by the Department:
Regulations should be related to education, student safety,
and stewardship of federal funds.
Regulations should be clear and comprehensible.
Regulations should not stray from clearly stated
legislative intent.
Costs and burdens of regulations should be accurately
estimated.
Clear safe harbors should be created.
The Department should recognize good faith efforts by
institutions.
The Department should complete program reviews and
investigations in a timely manner.
Penalties should be imposed at a level appropriate to the
violation.
Disclosure requirements should focus on issues of
widespread interest.
All substantive policies should be subject to the ``notice-
and-comment'' requirements of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
Regulations that consistently create compliance challenges
should be revised.
The Department should take all necessary steps to
facilitate compliance by institutions.
The Task Force believes that adherence to these principles
would help improve regulation of higher education, and urges
their adoption.
Again, to be clear: Regulations serve an important role in
ensuring institutional accountability. But requirements that
have an excessive reach, or that are unnecessarily costly and
difficult to implement--or worse still, that hinder student
access to college and drive costs up--are counterproductive.
Smarter rules are needed. In the context of the forthcoming
reauthorization of the HEA, this report from the Task Force
on Federal Regulation of Higher Education proposes many
specific avenues to improve the regulation of higher
education.
______
The Task Force on Federal Regulation of Higher Education
The pending reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
(HEA) provides an opportunity for Congress to examine how
institutions of higher education are regulated and to
identify ways to streamline and simplify regulatory policies
and practices. With that goal in mind, a bipartisan group of
U.S. Senators--Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Barbara Mikulski (D-
MD), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Michael Bennet (D-CO) created
the Task Force on Federal Regulation of Higher Education in
the fall of 2013 and directed it to consider these issues in
depth.
The Senators articulated a three-part charge for the group:
1) Provide specific recommendations to consolidate,
streamline, and eliminate burdensome, costly, and confusing
regulations, laws, and reporting requirements;
2) Review and quantify the extent of all federal
requirements with which institutions must comply, including
estimates of the time and costs associated with specific
regulations; and,
3) Provide recommendations for reform to ensure future
regulations are promulgated in a manner that appropriately
considers existing law and accurately examines the costs and
benefits to taxpayers, institutions, and students.
The Senators appointed Task Force members representing
institutions from across all sectors of higher education, and
named Chancellors William E. Kirwan of the University System
of Maryland and Nicholas S. Zeppos of Vanderbilt University
(TN) as co-chairs. In addition to Chancellors Kirwan and
Zeppos, the Task Force includes these members:
William L. Armstrong, President, Colorado Christian
University
Bruce D. Benson, President, University of Colorado
Molly Corbett Broad, President, American Council on
Education (DC)
Thomas V. Chema, President Emeritus, Hiram College (OH)
Margaret L. Drugovich, President, Hartwick College (NY)
Dana G. Hoyt, President, Sam Houston State University (TX)
Brice W. Harris, Chancellor, California Community College
System
Jonathan A. Kaplan, Chief Executive Officer, Laureate
Online Education (MD)
Cornelius M. Kerwin, President, American University (DC)
J. Michael Locke, Former CEO, Rasmussen College (IL)
Harold L. Martin Sr., Chancellor, North Carolina
Agricultural and Technical State University
Claude O. Pressnell Jr., President, Tennessee Independent
Colleges and Universities Association
Thomas W. Ross, President, University of North Carolina
Robert G. Templin Jr., President, Northern Virginia
Community College
In addition, the Senators asked the American Council on
Education (ACE) to support the work of the Task Force.
Scope of Work and Task Force Activities
The word ``regulation'' can be viewed broadly or narrowly.
Narrowly defined, federal regulation means only a requirement
imposed on institutions through the Code of Federal
Regulations, the codification of all the regulations
promulgated by federal agencies. Considered more broadly, it
means any requirement placed on colleges and universities in
order to participate in the federal student aid program. For
the purposes of this Task Force and our report, we use
``regulation'' in this broader sense.
The Task Force engaged in extensive consultations for this
project and solicited insights from higher education
associations, campus officials, and other organizations and
stakeholders. To gather input from individuals on campuses
who are responsible for implementing regulations, ACE staff
conducted extensive site visits and met with representatives
from more than 60 institutions around the country.
Our aim was not simply to reduce the number of regulations
imposed by the Department of Education, but rather to foster
more effective and efficient rules that still meet federal
objectives. To that end, we sought to accomplish these goals:
Summarize the increasing burden of federal regulation on
higher education.
[[Page S1103]]
Identify regulations of particular concern to institutions
of higher education, explain why they are problematic, and
recommend changes to ameliorate them.
Offer longer-term process improvements that would minimize
similar concerns about regulations in the future.
Section I of this report frames the current regulatory
landscape for higher education. Section II describes specific
current challenges. Section III details 10 regulations that
colleges and universities find especially problematic, and
recommends solutions. Finally, Section IV proposes ways to
improve the regulatory process.
Effective oversight can help colleges and universities keep
costs down, keep students safe, focus on educating students,
and be good stewards of federal funds. In that spirit, the
Task Force developed the following Guiding Principles to help
govern the development, implementation, and enforcement of
regulations by the Department:
Regulations should be related to education, student safety,
and stewardship of federal funds.
Regulations should be clear and comprehensible.
Regulations should not stray from clearly stated
legislative intent.
Costs and burdens of regulations should be accurately
estimated.
Clear safe harbors should be created.
The Department should recognize good faith efforts by
institutions.
The Department should complete program reviews and
investigations in a timely manner.
Penalties should be imposed at a level appropriate to the
violation.
Disclosure requirements should focus on issues of
widespread interest.
All substantive policies should be subject to the ``notice-
and-comment'' requirements of the Administrative Procedure
Act.
Regulations that consistently create compliance challenges
should be revised.
The Department should take all necessary steps to
facilitate compliance by institutions.
We believe that these principles would help improve the
regulation of higher education, and we urge their adoption.
While the primary focus of this report is on requirements
imposed by the Department of Education, institutions of
higher education are also regulated by every Cabinet-level
agency, as well as many sub-Cabinet-level agencies. In that
regard, we acknowledge the important work by other groups and
organizations, including the National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Board,
to examine regulations stemming from other agencies,
particularly in connection with federally funded research.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the
issue of funding for Homeland Security. However, I wish to note and
acknowledge the comments just made by my colleague from Tennessee,
Senator Alexander, the chair of the HELP Committee. I couldn't agree
with him more.
Hello, America. Two Senators, different parts of the country,
different political parties, different political views on some social
issues or whatever, but I couldn't agree more with this outstanding
report whose original idea came from the gentleman from Tennessee.
When we worked on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
about 5 years ago now, we agreed upon goals to make college more
accessible, to make college more affordable, to always insist that that
college offer a quality education and that students on the campus be
safe and secure so they could be in a true learning environment.
I am a student loan/student grant person, so I was focusing on the
students. I taught at Loyola University in Baltimore, in the community
college, but my colleague, who was the president of a university, said:
We ought to look at regs. Regulation could have a tremendous impact.
So we put our heads together. Our cochairs came from Tennessee. The
Maryland cochair was Dr. Kirwan, a retiring but very able chancellor.
And it is a terrific report. It is exactly what we wanted.
Where are the regs that, No. 1, are duplicative--the same darned
report after report, and then you do a report on the reports so that
then they can ask you questions and ask for a followup addendum. Then
there are also instances where the requirements are contradictory. So
there they are, the administrators of both the colleges and
universities themselves or of an individual grant program. So we want
to clarify that.
Not only under Senator Alexander's leadership did we go for what were
the top 10 concerns that were really burdensome, duplicative, or
contradictory, they gave us a checklist on what would constitute
criteria for a good reg. I think they gave us a great roadmap, and now
it is our part to use the report. So we are not like everybody else
where we got them to do a report and we don't do anything with it.
When we did ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which I was so
excited to be part of, it was truly a bipartisan effort. It led to
legislation, and it led to other executive branch input.
So I thank my colleague from Tennessee. I think this is the way we
should be working together--put our heads together, get the best advice
from what is out there in the real world, and then let's put our
shoulders to the wheel and get it done.
Does the Senator have a sense of when he would like to move or the
timetable to implement this?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for
her comments and her leadership.
I would say to the Senator from Maryland that I will need to sit down
and talk to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, which we plan to
do in March. My hope would be that in April we could begin five or six
hearings aligned with the recommendations in the report, and on other
matters such as accreditation, form working groups within our
committee, and then by the fall move ahead with the reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act and complete it by the end of the year.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Tennessee and look forward to
working with him.
Mr. President, this is the way it ought to be, where Senators come
together and bring our best ideas. We also bring our concerns and we
put them all on the table. But we began with civility, we began with
respect, and we established what were agreed-upon goals and how each
one of us thought we could get to the roadmap to do that. This is the
way I would hope we would work.
Now, as we come to almost a crisis with the funding for Homeland
Security running out on Friday, this is the time for us to put our
party differences aside, put our pet projects aside, and focus not on
what is good for our politics but what is good for America.
I understand that our leadership on both sides of the aisle--Senator
McConnell and Senator Reid--have arrived now at a framework where we
will go through a set of parliamentary procedures, which is our way, to
then arrive at a point where we could be voting on a full year's
funding for Homeland Security without any additional riders that could
derail the bill placed on it. I wish to compliment the leadership for
beginning a communication and establishing a parliamentary choreography
where we could actually get the job done. The leaders have been working
on this. We know they will be coming here on the floor in a few minutes
to share with us that idea and begin the procedures where every Senator
can exercise their will and their judgment.
But I just want to say this as the ranking member or the vice chair
of the Appropriations Committee: We have to fund the Department of
Homeland Security. We just have to do it. We have to do it, and we have
to do it now. I hope we can do it in the Senate this afternoon and that
the House really follows what we are doing here.
This is so crucial because of the very nature of what the bill is--
homeland security. This isn't about a new agency that might be
duplicative of another. This isn't about new programs. It is not even
about great big new sums of money. This Appropriations Committee
arrived at its recommendations when we were working on the omnibus.
The Presiding Officer is the chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security. I know that in the way he does his due diligence, he has
reviewed this bill. So the money part I don't think is controversial
and it actually does the job. And the job is to do the full funding to
protect the homeland.
I really worry about our country. Here we are, and we have ISIL
making additional threats to the United States about the security of
our malls. While
[[Page S1104]]
we were all pondering what our strategy would be and parsing what the
politics would be, our great Federal agents were on the scene making
sure that four Americans didn't go to join ISIL to fight against us and
perhaps organize predatory attacks against us. Our people are on the
job, and now it is time that we do our job and fully fund this agency.
America is at risk. We face terrorism. We face the consequences of
natural disasters, which FEMA and the Coast Guard are really helping us
with right now. We face cyber threats. We need the Department of
Homeland Security funded in a way to prevent and respond to these
situations.
When I look at this, it is really standing sentry in terms of all we
need to do in terms of port security, airport security, guarding our
borders through our Border Patrol agents, 23,000 Border Patrol agents.
But I also look at the first responders. If anything happens in our
country, it is local law enforcement and local firefighters who are the
first to respond. We have helped them with this response by providing
them with Federal funds. I am really proud of what we have done on
this.
I want to speak particularly about the Fire Grant Program. Now think
about what they do. Every day when they report to duty, our first
responders don't know what they will face. In my own home State of
Maryland, will they face a train derailment? We have had those. Will
they face a Metro fire? We have had that. Will we have a multiple-
vehicle accident on 95 that could involve a horrific accident that
requires rescue from hazardous and toxic waste? Because of who we are,
with our airports and our seaports, we also are a big threat for a
terrorist attack. Our first responders are asking us to give them the
money they need to pay the bills and also help them with these
necessities.
Over 10 years ago I joined with one of my Republican counterparts,
Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. We were both concerned with what was
happening to our volunteer fire departments. As he crisscrossed
Missouri and I crisscrossed Maryland, we were shocked to find out that
a new firetruck could cost as much as $1 million, that wonderful SCBA
protective gear that would be fire retardant or fire resistant could
cost $2,000, that the special breathing apparatus that is being
developed can cost over $5,000. When we put our heads together and
listened to our firefighters, we realized you could not fund that on
tip jars, pancake breakfasts, crabcake dinners, or oyster fries in my
own State. We wanted to help them. We wanted to make sure we helped
them so they could protect us.
So we looked at the Fire Grant Program. It has been a tremendous
success in my own State in the decades since we passed it. Over 600
fire departments have been helped with the new equipment they need.
When I travel my State, I have people who defend and protect me in my
community shake my hand. The Presiding Officer knows what the volunteer
firefighters do. I am sure it is the same situation in North Dakota as
it is western Maryland. They say: You have helped me be able to do the
job. Volunteer fire departments do all of this on their own time and on
their own dime.
So what happens if we don't fund Homeland Security? It means that
those $2 billion grants for emergency firefighters, port security, for
local efforts and so on will not be funded. Make no mistake. For those
people perhaps in the Senate or in the House that say that we just do a
continuing resolution, a continuing resolution means that grants cannot
be funded.
Under current law, for any program with an agency that is on a CR, it
cannot issue grant money at all. So that means right now they are
getting ready to take the Fire Grant Program proposals. Secretary Jeh
Johnson can't put out communication to say it is now the annual time
for fire chiefs to come in with their requests.
So we are placing America at risk--not only with the really big
picture stuff. Often the big picture comes back home. On that terrible,
terrible day of 9/11, who ran up into those burning buildings? Who ran
up those steps of the World Trade Center? It was our firefighters.
I am flinching, flagging, abashed at their heroism and their desire
to rescue. And every day--right this minute--one of them somewhere is
doing something. Certainly we can fund the grant program so they can
have the truck they need, so they have the breathing apparatus they
need, so they have the protective gear they need, so we can protect
them while they are protecting us--rather than protecting our political
butts. We have got to get off our butts and fund this bill.
I look forward to the leadership on both sides of the aisle coming
forward with a program to do it. I hope we have a sense of urgency.
There is a saying from Tip O'Neill that ``all politics is local,'' but
ultimately, all homeland security is local.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I appreciate our Democrat colleagues
joining us and proceeding to the House-passed bill. I have spoken to
the Democratic leader and my colleagues on the Republican side and
commit to offering an amendment to the House bill to fully fund the
Department of Homeland Security, while addressing the President's
Executive actions on a separate adjacent track through consideration of
the Collins bill.
When the Senate proceeds to H.R. 240, I will offer a clean substitute
and work to expedite consideration of the bill, as amended, to get it
back over to the House this week. I would welcome bipartisan
cooperation to pass the DHS funding bill as well as the commonsense
Collins bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader and I have had very good
discussions in the last 24 hours or so. We have agreed that, in order
to pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill for the remainder
of this fiscal year, the Democrats will support getting on the House
Homeland Security funding bill. In exchange, the majority leader will
provide that the only amendment will be a clean Homeland Security
funding substitute, which he just outlined. The substance of this
amendment is the same as the bill that was introduced by Senators
Mikulski and Shaheen about a month ago.
The Senate will adopt that amendment and send the amended bill to the
House in an expedited fashion. The Senate will then vote on cloture on
the motion to proceed to the Collins bill.
Personally, I don't believe the Collins bill is a compromise. It
would undermine law enforcement and tear families apart. So until full-
year funding for the Homeland Security Department is enacted, I will
vote against going to the Collins bill.
After a clean bill is signed into law, I will be happy to have a
vigorous debate on immigration and the best way to fix our broken
system.
I want to be very clear that Democrats would be willing to expedite
the plan we have before us by consent.
In conclusion, I thank the majority leader for working with Democrats
to come to a solution of this impasse that we have been faced with for
the last 4 weeks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to
reconsider vote No. 53, the vote by which cloture was not invoked on
the motion to proceed to H.R. 240.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the motion to
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 240.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the
[[Page S1105]]
Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a
close debate on the motion to proceed to H.R. 240, making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015.
Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran, Tom Cotton, Roger F.
Wicker, David Vitter, Jerry Moran, Daniel Coats,
Michael B. Enzi, Mike Crapo, Bill Cassidy, John
Boozman, John Thune, Tim Scott, John Hoeven, James
Lankford, Jeff Sessions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 240, an act making appropriations for the
Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2015, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close, upon
reconsideration?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]
YEAS--98
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--2
Inhofe
Sessions
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). On this vote, the yeas are 98,
the nays are 2.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion, upon reconsideration, is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I just want to applaud the vote we just
had. A 98-to-2 vote shows very clearly that our colleagues in the
Senate want to see funding for Homeland Security. Everybody understands
that the risks to this country are too great for us not to provide the
resources the Department needs so they can continue to do their jobs.
We just heard that the Department of Homeland Security was involved
with the FBI in the case of three people in Brooklyn who were
threatening this country because they wanted to go to the Middle East
and join ISIS. We need to make sure DHS has the funding they need. This
is real progress. I applaud Senators McConnell and Reid for their
efforts to get to this point.
I hope we can continue down this road to get funding for the
Department, and that when we send the bill over to the House, the House
will also work together in a bipartisan way to get a clean funding bill
before the resources run out, before the money runs out for the
Department of Homeland Security this Friday. We have a little bit of
time. We need to get this done. The Senate took a giant step forward
today to do that. I applaud my colleagues. I hope we can keep this
going and that we can get this done very soon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Income Inequality
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I do not agree with Speaker of the House
John Boehner on very much, but I do agree that it is an excellent idea
for there to be a joint session of Congress in the fall to hear from
Pope Francis. To my mind, in the last few years the Pope has played an
extraordinary role in speaking out on issues of enormous consequence
that impact every man, woman, and child, not just in our country but on
the planet. He has shown great courage in raising issues that we very
rarely discuss here in the Congress or in parliaments around the
country.
What I want to do briefly this afternoon is quote and discuss some of
the statements that the Pope has made that I think we need to listen
to. I think it is a wonderful idea that Speaker Boehner has invited the
Pope, but I think it is important we also listen to what he has said.
This is from Pope Francis.
We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf
of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of
money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless
and lacking any truly humane goal.
On another occasion what he says is: ``Man is not in charge today,
money is in charge, money rules.''
Then he says in another quote:
Today everything comes under the laws of competition and
the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the
powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves
excluded and marginalized: without work, without
possibilities, without any means of escape.
Then he says this on an issue that is, I think, very relevant to this
body:
In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-
down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged
by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about
greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion,
which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a
crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding
economic power and in the sacralized workings of the
prevailing economic system.
Then he says:
. . . these things become the norm: that some homeless people
die of cold on the streets is not news. In contrast, a ten
point drop on the stock markets of some cities, is a tragedy.
In other words, when people die because they are poor and hungry and
cold, that is not news. But a 10-point drop in the stock market becomes
a tragedy.
Then he says:
We must say ``we want a just system! A system that enables
everyone to get on''. We must say: ``we don't want this
globalized economic system which does us so much harm!''
Here we have the leader of the Catholic Church raising profound
issues about the state of the economy--certainly not just to the United
States but all over the world. I don't want to paraphrase him, but my
interpretation of what he is saying is that money cannot be an end in
itself. The function of an economic system is not just to let the
marketplace reign and end up in a situation where a small number of
people have incredible wealth while so many people have virtually
nothing.
That is true not just of the United States, but it is even more true
around the world. We have a situation right now--incredible as it may
sound--where the wealthiest 85 people in the world own more wealth than
the bottom half of the world's population. So 85 phenomenally wealthy
billionaires are here, and half of the world's population are over
here--over 3 billion people. Does anybody in the wildest stretch of
their imagination think this is anything close to a just world economic
system?
Oxfam recently told us that within the global economy within a year
or two, the top 1 percent of the world's wealthiest people will own
more wealth than the bottom 99 percent. What religion condones this
type of economic disparity? What political party should condone this
type of economic disparity?
What the Pope is essentially saying is we need to pay attention to
those people who are hurting--not just the homeless, not just the
hungry, but those people who are working longer hours for low wages and
at exactly the same time when in this country we have seen a
proliferation of millionaires and billionaires. Is that what our
economy is supposed to be about?
Let me just amplify what the Pope was saying by giving you some cold
statistics in terms of what is going on in the United States of
America. I am not talking about the global economy. I am not talking
about Greece, where unemployment is 25 percent and where their economy
has contracted by a quarter in the last 6 years. I am talking about the
American economy.
[[Page S1106]]
Since 1999 the median middle-class family--that family right in the
middle of the American economy--has seen its income go down by almost
$5,000 after adjusting for inflation. Incredibly, that family earned
less income last year than it did 26 years ago, back in 1989.
Do you want to know why people in America are angry? Whether they are
in the Occupy Wall Street movement and consider themselves progressive,
whether they are in the tea party movement and consider themselves
conservative, the median male worker--that man right in the middle of
the American economy--earned $783 less last year than he did 42 years
ago. In other words, you have seen an explosion of technological
productivity, but the male worker in the middle of the economy--
inflation adjusted for dollars--made $783 less last year than he did 42
years ago, while the median female worker--the woman in the middle of
the American economy--earned $1,300 less last year than she did in
2007.
All over this country we are seeing men and women working longer
hours for lower wages. We are seeing people working not one job but two
jobs or three jobs in order to cobble together the income they need and
maybe some health care as well. But while the middle class continues to
disappear on a 40-year trajectory, the wealthiest people and the
largest corporations are doing phenomenally well. The gap between the
very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider.
This is what the Pope means, I think, when he says this:
While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially,
that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results
from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets
and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control
to States, which are themselves charged with providing for
the common good.
This is from Pope Francis. So what does he mean when he talks about
the income of a minority increasing exponentially while the majority is
crumbling? Let me give you some examples. I talked about male wages,
female wages, and median family income. Let me talk about what is going
on in the top 1 percent.
Today the top 1 percent in America now own about 41 percent of the
entire wealth of our country while the bottom 60 percent own less than
2 percent. Let me repeat that. The top 1 percent own over 40 percent of
the wealth. The bottom 60 percent own less than 2 percent. Today,
incredibly, the top one-tenth of 1 percent now own almost as much
wealth as the bottom 90 percent--one-tenth of 1 percent. So 16,000
families own almost as much wealth as the bottom 300 million people in
our country. Today the Walton family--the owners of Walmart and the
wealthiest family in America--is now worth $153 billion. That is more
wealth in one family than the bottom 40 percent of Americans. Over the
past decade, the net worth of the top 400 billionaires in this country
has doubled, up to an astronomical $1 trillion in just 10 years.
In terms of income as opposed to wealth, almost all of the new income
generated in recent years, since the Wall Street crash, has gone to the
top 1 percent. In fact, the last information that we have indicates
that over 99 percent of all new income generated in this country goes
to the top 1 percent.
The top 25 hedge fund managers on Wall Street made more than $24
billion in 2013, equivalent to the full salaries of more than 425,000
public school teachers. What we are seeing in this country is growing
income and wealth inequality. What we are seeing around the world is
the same.
What troubles me very much is that in the midst of a disappearing
middle class, at a time when we have more people living in poverty
today than at almost any time in recent history, I believe my
Republican colleagues on the Budget Committee will bring forth a budget
in the next few years which will move us in exactly the wrong
direction. When the rich get richer, their proposal will be let's give
more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
When large corporations are enjoying huge profits, and major
corporation after major corporation is paying nothing in Federal income
tax, their proposal will be let's give more tax breaks to large
multinational corporations.
Then after giving tax breaks to the rich and large corporations, they
say: Well, we want a balanced budget, and the way we are going to
balance the budget is on the backs of a disappearing middle class, on
the backs of millions of working families, and on the backs of the
poorest and most vulnerable people in this country.
This is the Robin Hood principle in reverse. This is taking from the
poor and working people and giving it to the millionaires and
billionaires.
I would hope the American people say: Enough is enough. We don't need
more tax breaks for the rich and large corporations. We don't need to
cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition programs
for hungry people, and Pell grants so the kids can go to college. That
is not what we should be doing. In fact, we should be moving in exactly
the other direction.
From 1983 to a few years ago, what we have seen in this country is an
incredible transfer of wealth from the bottom 90 percent to the top 1
percent. We are talking about trillions of dollars in wealth going from
the bottom 90 percent to the top 1 percent. Most Americans are saying:
Enough is enough. We don't need more austerity for the middle class. We
don't need to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Maybe it is
time for some austerity for the top 1 percent.
I hope when we come together to discuss the budget, Members of the
Senate will listen to what Pope Francis has been talking about and give
us a budget which works for the most vulnerable people in this country,
which works for tens of millions of working families, and does not
simply work for large campaign donors.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, somebody asked me a little while ago,
shouldn't we be voting on the mishmash on Homeland Security that the
House of Representatives sent over because of the immigration matters
in it.
I reminded them that the Senate in the last Congress voted by a 2-to-
1 margin, on a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill which we sent
to the House of Representatives and the Speaker refused to bring the
bill up. It probably would have passed.
Had it passed, it would have been signed into law and President Obama
would not have issued any Executive orders. There would be no need to.
We had everything from border security, which Republicans and Democrats
voted for, to minors and the DREAMers, which Republicans and Democrats
voted for.
In fact, we had hundreds of hours of hearings and markups. We had
around 140 amendments that were brought up, and I would call for one
Republican amendment and one Democratic amendment. We went back and
forth day after day, night after night. We did 140 or 141 amendments.
All but one of them passed by a bipartisan vote. We then had dozens
of amendments on the floor, all of which passed with bipartisan votes.
The final bill got 68 votes.
We have done the work on immigration. Let's not play games and
endanger the needed funding for the Department of Homeland Security at
a time when we face all kinds of dangers in this country. Let's not
close down Department of Homeland Security on a made-up mission of
doing something for immigration.
We passed an immigration bill. They could take out the draft of that
old bill, vote it up, and vote it down. Sixty-eight Senators,
Republicans and Democrats alike, voted for it. Let's bring up something
similar. Let's have a real debate. Let's have amendments. Let's go to
immigration. Then in the meantime, let's pass the Department of
Homeland Security bill.
Millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted even
today as they prepare for a shutdown, not knowing whether these tactics
are going to close down the Department, that major part of our
government, or not. They have to spend the money. That is money wasted,
to say nothing about the job that's not being done.
I refer to my speech about Groundhog Day because we have seen this
one.
[[Page S1107]]
Our friends across the way in the Capitol closed down the government
before.
In just 2 days, unless Congress acts, the doors at the Department of
Homeland Security, one of the country's primary national security
agencies, will shutter. Unless we act, 30,000 workers will be
furloughed without pay. Another 130,000 will be asked to work in
defense of our nation's security, without pay.
This is another needless, made-in-Washington crisis. We find
ourselves here today because of the House's initial failure to act for
more than a year and a half on bipartisan legislation that the Senate
passed to help fix our broken immigration system. The House's inaction
forced the President to do what he could through the executive
authorities available to him. Those actions are welcomed. But they are
not permanent, legislative fixes. Now, because Republicans in the House
are angry that the President acted where they would not, they are
threatening the functions of the very agency that helps protect our
borders, our airspace, our waterways, and our communities.
Every State in this country will be affected by a shutdown of the
Department of Homeland Security. In the midst of a fiercely cold
winter, when the Northeast has been devastated by life-threatening
storms, we put at risk important recovery resources available through
FEMA. We put at risk counterterrorism efforts and analysis of critical
intelligence, as we continue to mount and improve our national security
in the face of unprecedented violent threats from enemies overseas. It
is appalling that in the face of reports that terrorists want to target
such domestic sites as the Mall of America, some in Congress are
playing petty politics with the vital operations of the Department of
Homeland Security.
A short-term continuing resolution will not solve this problem. A
continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security
recognizes neither the evolving threats to our Nation's security, nor
the continuing stresses on our immigration system. A continuing
resolution for the Department will tear immigrant families apart,
rather than support keeping them together. A continuing resolution will
not support an increase of $400 million for the Department. It will
freeze FEMA resources at their current levels.
And let's remember one key fact that I do not hear these reckless
voices in Congress acknowledging: The funding bill we should be
considering--the Shaheen-Mikulski bill--already is a compromise bill.
It is far from perfect. For example, I strongly oppose the new funding
for family detention. Incarcerating women and children fleeing violence
runs contrary to our long history as a nation that offers refuge to
those most in need. Nonetheless I am prepared to support the bill,
because it will help State and local communities with disaster
recovery, with law enforcement activities, and will support our
national security and counterterrorism efforts.
The Shaheen-Mikulski bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations
between Republicans and Democrats in both the Senate and the House. But
for the President's executive actions in November, it would have been
included in the omnibus spending bill that was signed into law last
year. Now we are on the brink of a potential shutdown of the Department
of Homeland Security. This is a fabricated crisis. The solution is
simple. The Senate should approve the Shaheen-Mikulski bill, send it to
the House, and end this stalemate. The House should promptly consider
the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration legislation approved
overwhelmingly by the Senate in 2013.
If there is another debate to be had about fixing our immigration
system, let's have that debate. But let's stop holding the operations
of one of the Nation's key national security agency captive, while
asking tens of thousands of hardworking Americans--including more than
2,500 Vermonters--to either work without pay or take an unpaid leave of
absence. This is not the way to run a country. Unlike in so many other
questions facing our country, the solution to this contrived disaster
is easy. Members of Congress just need to have the courage to act.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ukraine
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise once again in support of the
people of Ukraine in their struggle against Russian aggression. The
most recent diplomatic efforts seem to have only emboldened President
Putin.
Since Minsk II, which is the last time they came to an agreement with
reference to a ceasefire, there have been hundreds of ceasefire
violations and the city of Debaltseve has fallen under rebel control.
Putin's forces now threaten Mariupol, which would provide a key land
bridge to Crimea, and his intentions are clear.
In my view, we need to urgently increase the cost to Putin with
tougher sanctions and by providing more security assistance to the
Ukrainian military.
At a press conference on February 9 with Chancellor Merkel, the
President said that his team was considering options including the
provision of defensive military equipment if the diplomatic effort with
respect to Russia has failed.
As recent events have shown, Minsk II is clearly dead, and we need to
take a different approach.
At so many points in history, there have been opportunities for the
international community to deter rogue actors from violating the
sovereignty of other countries. Unless bullies such as Putin are
confronted, they will always bully, they will always force a response,
and they will always be an even greater problem for their neighbors and
the broader international community.
Putin took Crimea, then he took Donetsk, then he took Luhansk, and
last week he took Debaltseve. While he has paid a price because of the
sanctions regime, that price has not changed his behavior. So now is
the time to increase the cost to Putin. Now is the time to increase
sanctions on Russia and work with Europe to consider additional
sanctions in other sectors of the economy. Now is the time for the
President to abide by his words on February 9--to provide badly needed
defensive weapons to the Ukrainian Government and to rethink our
strategic response to Russia's encroachment in Ukraine and across the
former Soviet territories.
The international community simply cannot remain passive in the face
of such unbridled aggression that will only invite further aggression.
So I call upon the administration to fully implement measures this body
authorized when it passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which the
President signed into law on December 18.
Last month I wrote to Secretary Kerry in the wake of the bloodiest
period since the start of this crisis. I urged the administration to
fully implement the authorities provided in the law and to comply with
the clear reporting deadlines.
The legislation passed with unanimous consent in both Houses of
Congress. It authorizes the President to provide much needed military
and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and it imposes additional sanctions
against Russia in this time of crisis. The legislation was necessary in
December, and it is even more necessary today.
We know the sanctions implemented by the United States and the
European Union have had a tangible effect on the Russian economy.
Combined with the decrease in global energy markets, they have put
unprecedented pressure on President Putin. But he is undeterred. He
continues to provide illegitimate and illegal support to separatists in
eastern Ukraine, evidenced by OSCE and NATO reports cataloging the
growing number of Russian troops and artillery that remain in the
region and as evidenced by the spiking violence by so-called Russian-
backed separatists against both military troops and civilians. Russian
troops and these so-called Russian-backed rebels have carried out
deadly attacks on civilians in eastern Ukraine. They have killed
scores--they have killed women, they have killed children. They have
ignored Minsk I. They have ignored
[[Page S1108]]
Minsk II. And now they have gained control of Debaltseve and have made
moves towards Mariupol. This must end. The violence must end and the
killing must stop.
We must renew our commitment to the people of Ukraine and stand
against Putin's blatant aggression. I appreciate the administration's
comprehensive efforts to counter Russian aggression, but I also believe
it is not enough. We must act immediately to influence the course of
events on the ground and urge the President to fully implement the
Ukraine Freedom Support Act. The violence threatening Ukraine's
territorial integrity is threatening the region. The international
community has an obligation to respond to Putin's clear signals that
his intention is to escalate tensions in Ukraine and across the region.
Since Senator Corker and I, along with other committee members,
introduced the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, Putin has escalated his
belligerent and aggressive tactics. NATO has deployed more than 400
times last year to intercept Russian military flights near members'
European airspace.
In July of 2014, Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko was captured by
Russian forces and is being illegally detained in Russia despite
Russia's commitment to Minsk to free her.
In September of last year, Russians abducted the Estonian security
service officer Eston Kohver from Estonian territory. He was taken from
Estonian territory to Moscow where he has been languishing in prison
without due process.
In October, Sweden's military discovered what it believed was a
Russian submarine outside of Stockholm. In December, about a dozen
Russian aircraft, including bombers, flew into the Baltic Sea region.
In January, attacks on civilian buses took the lives of 20 Ukrainians.
It is time for the international community to say enough is enough.
Fully implementing the sanctions and assistance in the Ukraine
Freedom Support Act will help restore its sovereignty, it will help
restore its territorial integrity, and it will help deter Russia from
further destabilizing the region.
I urge the President to implement these measures immediately, without
delay. That said, I understand there are individuals on the European
Union and Canadian targeted sanctions list who do not appear on the
American list of sanctions. Now why is this the case?
Perhaps the most egregious example is Alexander Bortnikov, the head
of the Russian FSB. Mr. Bortnikov is not on the U.S. lists in relation
to either Ukraine or the Magnitsky act, but he is on the European Union
and Canadian lists. To make matters worse, Mr. Bortnikov was here in
the United States last week for President Obama's CVE conference. To
say that I am puzzled would be an understatement.
The fact is there are almost 150 individuals and entities on the
Canadian and EU sanctions lists that are not on the U.S. lists. If
there is no justifiable reason for excluding these individuals, then
they should be added.
Yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary
Kerry indicated that these lists will be synced, harmonized, in the
coming days, and I will keep a close eye on this process. Clearly, for
the international effort to be effective, we need to be in lockstep
with our Canadian and European allies. When we passed this legislation
last December, it coincided with a Wall Street Journal report about the
fortune that Russians were spending to lobby Washington against passing
that very bill. They claimed the sanctions would affect the West's
willingness to invest in Russia, and I say that is exactly what these
sanctions should do.
Putin is using his military power to impose his will in Ukraine, but
he is also using every economic tool at his disposal, and we must do
the same. We must make it clear to Mr. Putin that there will be
consequences for his actions.
This is not only obviously important in the context of Ukraine, which
it certainly is in the first instance, but it is also about sending a
very clear global message that if you violate and upend the
international order, there will be consequences for doing so. Because
in the absence of real consequences to doing so, there are other actors
in the world who are looking at what is happening in Ukraine who will
say, well, what did the United States, what did the West do to stop the
aggression of Russia? And if the answer is not very much, at the end of
the day--certainly not enough to stop that aggression--then other
actors in the world who may be more powerful than their neighbors, who
may have nuclear weapons in their possession, such as North Korea, will
think about what they want to do. And whether that is China in the
South China Sea which has had territorial disputes with our allies
South Korea and Japan, or whether it is the challenge we have in North
Korea of a nuclear armed North Korea, whether it is Maduro in Venezuela
oppressing his people--I can go through a list of global actors who
will wonder that if, at the end of the day, there isn't much
consequence for violating the international order, then I will do what
I wish to do because I have the power to do it without consequences.
That is an incredibly risky world to live in.
So I urge the President to implement our bill now. The military
situation on the ground is clear. The Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, NATO, the Ukrainian National Security Defense
Council, have all reported on the presence of Russian military convoys
and troops in eastern Ukraine.
As a matter of fact, I was there last year in the midst of the
invasion--and I call it an invasion, because last time I checked, where
I come from, if you have Russian troops crossing from Russia into
another sovereign country, if you have surface-to-surface missiles, if
you have armored vehicles and tanks and all of them are crossing
without provocation, then you clearly have an invasion--and that has
only mounted. You can take a soldier and take his Russian insignia off
and put something else on, but they are still Russian soldiers coming
into Ukraine from Russia.
Fear is mounting in Mariupol that pro-Russian rebels with Russian
support will conduct further attacks to ease land access to Crimea from
Russia. If Russia gets its land access to Crimea, despite all of our
talk that we will not forget that Crimea was taken by force illegally
in violation of international law, Crimea is gone. If Russia continues
down this path, its illegal occupation will be solidified and Putin
clearly intends to continue to play his game.
Prior to Minsk II, Oleksandr Zakharchenko, the head of the
separatists in Donetsk, said ``there will be no ceasefires'' and that
the separatists will not stop their attacks until they have ``reached
the borders of the former Donetsk region.''
He has stayed true to his word. There are no more ceasefires. He
issued an order to ``take no prisoners,'' claiming that the separatists
were no longer interested in prisoner swaps.
So I say to my colleagues, the situation is dire and it is becoming
increasingly clear we are not doing enough to change it. We must raise
the costs to Putin and his cronies by providing Ukraine with the
assistance it needs to defend itself. The world is watching and waiting
and the time is now. The Ukraine Freedom Support Act explicitly
authorizes the provision of defensive military assistance. Let's
provide it.
We have sent over night vision goggles, and I guess those are great
to see the enemy, but if they can't stop the enemy, what good is that?
What good is that?
Let's provide anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, crew weapons, and
ammunition. Let's provide counterartillery radar to identify and target
artillery batteries, fire control, range finder, and optical and
guidance control equipment. Let's provide tactical troop-operated
surveillance drones and secure command and communications equipment.
The administration was required to report to Congress on February 15
regarding its plan for increasing military assistance to the Government
of Ukraine. Ten days later, we are still waiting on this report. I urge
the President to impose the more stringent sanctions on Russia's
defense and energy sectors that we outlined in the law. I urge him to
enact further sanctions on Rosoboronexport and other Russian defense
firms that we know contribute to the instability in Ukraine, Moldova,
Georgia, and Syria. These firms outfit pro-Russian rebels and Russian
troops who have invaded
[[Page S1109]]
eastern Ukraine and established illegitimate republics recognized by no
one but President Putin. It is time to enact those sanctions. It is
time that we put an end to the chaos and violence these firms spread
around the world. It is time to impose additional targeted sanctions on
the Russian energy sector to add to existing sanctions that are already
costing the Russian economy about $140 billion a year, or about 7
percent of its economy.
By imposing the energy sanctions called for in the act, the
administration will tighten restrictions on shale deposits, arctic
drilling, and offshore drilling.
The Ukraine Freedom Support Act calls for the administration to
impose sanctions on other defense industry targets as well as on
special Russian crude oil projects by January 31. We are still waiting
to see the administration's response.
On September 18, Petro Poroshenko, the President of Ukraine,
addressed a joint session of Congress. We applauded his message of
solidarity. Now it is time to move past the applause. Now is the time
to stand together in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. President
Poroshenko asked for defensive arms, he asked us for aid, and he asked
us for tougher sanctions on Russia. We all want a diplomatic solution
to this problem, but I believe this can only come about when Putin
believes the cost of continuing to ravage Ukraine is simply too high.
We have a responsibility to increase that cost.
I ask the President to heed our call and to fully exercise the
authority granted by the Ukraine Freedom Support Act and to do it now.
If we do that, not only do we save a key country that is presently
bleeding--the eastern part of Ukraine is one of the most productive
parts of the country. It is tough to keep providing financial support
to it when it cannot openly stabilize itself because of the violence
and the economic bleeding that goes on by virtue of the war in the
East. This is about a country that is looking westward toward
democracy, toward the European Union. We should be helping countries
that want to make that decision and have made that decision by
themselves be able to achieve their sovereign right to do so. We should
be sending a clear international message about not violating the
international order, and we should be sending a clear and powerful
message that when you do, there are repercussions.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________