[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 164 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7758-S7769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Waters of the United States Rule

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this week has been devoted legislatively to 
discussing and considering legislation affecting an EPA regulation 
called waters of the United States. It is one more example of executive 
overreach by an increasingly unaccountable Federal agency.
  I want to speak about our efforts here on the Senate floor this week 
and again encourage my colleagues to continue their efforts to make 
certain this overreach is responded to by Congress. The courts have 
spoken, but we want to make certain we do our job.
  One of the criticisms I hear regularly from people who support this 
regulation is this: Don't you care about water quality? Don't you care 
about clean water? I absolutely think it is important to protect our 
Nation's waterways. If you are a Kansan, water is life, water is the 
future of your community. Water matters greatly. We are not against 
clean water.
  Agriculture producers--which dominate in my State--across Kansas are 
strongly opposed to this regulation, but they are certainly not opposed 
to the efforts to keep our water supply safe and clean. Most Kansas 
farmers and ranchers hope to pass their land and their farming 
operations on to their kids and grandkids. It serves their interests to 
preserve the land and water to which their family farms are tethered. 
It is not the Washington lobbyists and the environmental radicals who 
are telling Americans ``If you oppose this regulation, you are opposed 
to clean water.'' That is what they say. Kansans care greatly and 
particularly farmers and landowners who want their children to enjoy 
their farm or ranch in the future care greatly about clean water.
  It is EPA's abusive regulatory path, characterized by fines, 
penalties, and potential civil lawsuits against landowners, that gives 
us major cause for concern. The Federal Government should not dictate 
to citizens how they manage their private lands.
  I believe there are better ways to promote water quality than with 
threats of severe fines, penalties, or even jail time. One of the ways 
we see this effort take place is through the Department of 
Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service. NRCS promotes soil 
and water health not by mandates and threats from Washington but 
through collaborative, voluntary approaches that encourage conservation 
through incentives and on-the-ground technical assistance for those 
landowners.
  Unlike the EPA, which seems to view agriculture producers as 
untrustworthy partners who must be forced into caring for the land, 
NRSC and the USDA Farm Service Agency efforts are successful in large 
part because they operate under the recognition that farmers and 
ranchers are devoted stewards to their land.
  Policies such as the Grassroots Source Water Protection Program and 
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program are examples of voluntary 
approaches that incentivize innovation, provide technical assistance, 
and more broadly promote clean water through localized, cooperative 
efforts. Compare those approaches to what we are debating here on the 
floor today and earlier this week--an overly broad, overly complex, 
overly ambitious regulation drafted by an agency that has shown a 
complete unwillingness to listen to or work with landowners.
  This regulation is pretty straightforward. If it is water, EPA has 
the authority to regulate it unless it decides it doesn't want to. 
Again, what this regulation basically says is that if it is water, EPA 
has the authority to regulate it unless EPA decides it doesn't want to 
do it.
  First, EPA declares that all ``tributaries'' are waters of the United 
States. Tributaries are defined as anything with a bed, banks, or an 
ordinary high-water mark, regardless of the frequency or duration of 
the water flow. This kind of definition is so broad and all-
encompassing that the EPA can assert jurisdiction over streams and 
ditches that may flow only for a few hours following a rainstorm.
  This regulation also controls waters that are ``adjacent'' to any 
water that is under EPA's jurisdiction, including 100-year-old 
floodplains. And if somehow water could still escape the EPA's long 
shadow, its broad definition, they came up with yet one more way to 
regulate it. The regulation states that if waters aren't adjacent or 
are not tributaries, they can still regulate if there is ``significant 
nexus'' between the waters EPA wants to regulate and navigable or 
interstate water. What that means is that every drop of rain can be 
regulated because every drop of rain always ends up in a body of water 
that is navigable. All EPA has to do is establish some connection 
between the two, and they have granted themselves the authority to 
regulate the waters.
  With its significant civil fines and criminal penalties for those not 
in compliance, we can see why so many Americans are concerned.
  Last year, EPA went on a public relations campaign of sorts to 
convince stakeholders and to convince people across the country that 
they only meant to ``clarify,'' not expand, the

[[Page S7759]]

regulation. Instead of lecturing, the EPA should have listened to the 
overwhelming feedback they received from constituents, including many 
who attended a meeting in Kansas City. The EPA should have scrapped the 
rule and started over.
  Now we have learned that not only did the EPA ignore the outcry of 
the American people, but they also disregarded the technical experts at 
the Army Corps of Engineers who described the rule as ``not reflective 
of the Corps' experience or expertise.'' Again, the Corps is the agency 
that the EPA is to work with to develop rules. They are the experts, 
and they say this rule is not reflective of the Corps' experience or 
expertise. The Corps says it is not accurate. The Corps says it is not 
supported by science or law. The Corps says it is inconsistent with the 
Supreme Court's decision. And the Corps says it is regulatory 
overreach.
  It is obvious that the regulation exceeds the EPA's legal authority 
under the Clean Water Act. It is equally obvious that the EPA intended 
to run roughshod over anyone who disagreed.
  The waters of the United States regulation is, in short, a 
breathtaking abuse of power, and it is something Congress needs to 
address.
  For too long, Congress has looked the other way when this Executive 
or any other occupant of the White House exceeds their congressionally 
mandated legal authorities. Republicans perhaps look the other way when 
there is a Republican President and Democrats look the other way when 
there is a Democratic President. The reality is that Congress needs to 
play its constitutional role in determining what the law is and prevent 
the abuse that comes from a White House that exceeds that legislative 
authority day after day.
  The EPA's regulations ignore two Supreme Court opinions. It ignores a 
time-honored understanding of what the law does and does not permit in 
the way of regulation, as evidenced by numerous legislative attempts 
rejected by Congress to amend the Clean Water Act that the Obama 
administration now does by regulatory action. It ignores the serious 
repercussions for farmers and ranchers, electric cooperatives that 
provide electricity to my State, the oil and gas industry that provides 
jobs across Kansans, the homebuilders that provide homes for Kansans, 
and many other small business owners in our State and across the 
country. And it ignores the concerns voiced by so many more, including 
State and local officials across Kansas and our Nation.
  At the end of the day, if the goal is to promote clean water and 
responsible land management, there is a much more effective method to 
do so, as evidenced by the voluntary cooperative efforts within USDA 
that respect private property rights, incentivize conservation rather 
than criminalize landowners, and don't threaten to do irreparable harm 
to our country and to the jobs Kansans so desperately need.
  I urge my colleagues to block this regulation and to force the EPA 
and the Army Corps of Engineers to work with State and local officials 
and those affected by the regulation in protecting real waters of the 
United States. We must protect those waters. We should do it much 
differently than the Environmental Protection Agency proposes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                          Crude Oil Export Ban

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about a month ago the White House 
announced that it has reached a deal with 11 other countries along the 
Pacific Rim--known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is a major 
trade agreement that followed on the approval of trade promotion 
authority by the Congress.
  As we might expect, President Obama has been quick to tout his 
credentials as a pro-trade President, and I think so far, so good. In 
fact, though, you might say he is so pro-trade that he has 
significantly not only sought to open up the U.S. economy but also the 
Iranian economy, releasing billions of dollars to a hostile regime by 
negotiating a deal to ease sanctions against them and potentially 
releasing as much as 1 million barrels of crude oil by Iran onto the 
world markets. I think it has been well documented that I oppose that 
deal.
  I do find the President's position is perplexing at minimum or 
hypocritical at worst. It is hypocritical that despite his self-
proclaimed pro-trade stance, he refuses to do something that should be 
a no-brainer when it comes to any proponent of free trade: opening up 
foreign markets to the things we make and produce here, like lifting 
the antiquated ban on exporting crude oil.
  By refusing to revise this outdated policy, the President continues 
to contribute to the flatline of our economy and to deny our potential 
as an energy powerhouse. And, I might add, at the same time, by not 
acting to lift this export ban, the President continues to deny our 
allies the energy they need for their economic security and to improve 
their national security.
  Next month will mark 40 years since the United States put into place 
a ban on the export of crude oil. For those who might not be familiar 
with the history, let me offer a little bit of background.
  The crude oil export ban was put in place decades ago as a precaution 
to protect the United States from disruptions to global supply of oil 
in the 1970s, at a time when we were importing the majority of the oil 
and gas that we consumed here in the United States. But, fortunately, 
the world looks a lot different than it did back in the 1970s. For 
example, in 1970, world production was roughly 48 million barrels of 
oil a day. In 2015 that number has doubled to 100 million barrels of 
oil a day, and the United States alone is producing about 9.4 million 
barrels of oil a day.
  As recently as 2008, 76 percent of Americans believed that the world 
was somehow running out of oil. Thanks to the remarkable shale 
revolution, we have come a long way in helping the geopolitical energy 
landscape turn in our favor here in the United States and have reduced 
our dependency on imported energy from other parts of the country.
  I should mention that it is because of the commonsense policies of 
States such as Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Dakota that we have 
been able to take advantage of the incredible new technology in this 
field that goes along with horizontal drilling and fracking to produce 
a supply of oil and gas that we never would have dreamed of a few short 
years ago. These developments have been nothing short of revolutionary.
  We have recently seen an uptick in oil imports in the United States, 
primarily because overseas energy producers are discounting their crude 
to be able to take advantage of the U.S. market. The downward trend for 
the past several years of imports of oil showed that the United States 
is importing less than it historically has. Why? Because we are 
producing more here, so we are less reliant. I think most people would 
think that would be a good thing.
  Our country doesn't need to bar our domestically produced energy from 
reaching the global market. We should do away with this antiquated 
policy and, in so doing, help kick start the U.S. economy in the 
process. First, let me talk about what this would do to help our 
economy. Lifting the ban would mean real job creation right here in 
this country. These are not minimum wage jobs. These are well-paying 
jobs. It is easy to think that lifting the ban would only provide a 
limited benefit to those who work in the domestic energy sector, but 
that is actually not the case.
  Domestic energy production involves many different sectors, from 
construction to shipping to technology companies. By allowing our 
country to export more crude, the United States has the potential to 
create many, many jobs here in the United States at a time when we need 
more jobs--not only in the domestic energy sector but deep in the 
supply chain as well.
  One study estimated that for every new production job, it translates 
into three additional jobs in the supply chain and another six in the 
broader economy. It is estimated that in my home State of Texas alone, 
more than 40,000 jobs could be created in the coming years simply by 
lifting the ban and making available to producers the global benchmark 
price known as the Brent price. Several studies have suggested that 
hundreds of thousands of jobs in multiple sectors throughout the 
country could be created in the coming years if the crude export ban is 
lifted.
  By the way, I should mention this--because this is probably on 
everybody's mind: What is this going to do to the price of gasoline? 
Study after study has

[[Page S7760]]

documented that gasoline prices are going to remain either where they 
are now or go lower should the ban be lifted. By the way, the Energy 
Secretary of the Obama administration, Dr. Moniz, agrees with that. It 
is plain old supply and demand, if you think about it.
  Lifting the crude oil ban export would strengthen our economy and 
could actually save Americans money at the pump. But doing away with 
this outdated, protectionist policy also gives us the opportunity to 
promote stronger relationships with our friends and allies around the 
world. For example, our NATO allies and other nations in Europe rightly 
question why the United States doesn't lift this ban, which would help 
them achieve a source of energy that they need, instead of having to 
depend on countries such as Russia that use it as an instrument of 
coercion and intimidation.
  Today, many of our allies in Europe rely not only on Russia but on 
Iran for their energy needs. Wouldn't it be so much better if we were 
able to enter into contracts to sell our energy to our friends and 
allies to help prop them up and provide them another source of energy, 
rather than leave them dependent on countries such as Russia that want 
to use it as an instrument of intimidation. Because of these countries' 
dependence on our adversaries for their basic needs such as heating, 
electricity, and fuel, this represents a real vulnerability, not just 
for them but for us as well because we are part of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization.
  As our world becomes more interconnected, we need to take a more 
long-term strategic view. That means considering the implications of 
our energy policies for our own national security. By lifting this ban, 
the United States can offer to help our friends diversify their energy 
supplies and enhance their energy security and help reduce the revenue 
that these rogue states take in for nefarious purposes--such as Iran, 
the No. 1 sponsor of state terrorism.
  Lifting the crude oil ban represents a rare opportunity to do two 
things vital for our country: to strengthen our economy and to promote 
a safer, more stable world for our allies and partners and ultimately 
for us.
  Last month, in a strong bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives 
voted to overturn this ban. Now it is time for the Senate to do the 
same. Unfortunately, the White House has already sent a signal that 
were we to pass such a bill to lift the ban, the President might decide 
to veto this pro-trade legislation. I wish to point out to the White 
House and to anybody else who is listening that time and again the 
President has relied on Republicans in this Chamber to advance his pro-
trade agenda. The reason we have done it is because we agree that a 
pro-trade agenda is good for our economy and good for our security.
  Soon we will have an opportunity to read the full text of the Trans-
Pacific Partnership Agreement that I mentioned earlier. Pro-trade 
Republicans in this Chamber, myself included, have voted to equip 
Congress with a powerful mechanism with which to consider trade 
agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement or trade 
promotion authority. Trade promotion authority, or TPA, which passed 
with strong Republican support and only 13 Democratic votes in the 
Senate, does not guarantee that the President's agreement will pass 
this Senate or this Congress--far from it. I am going to use all of the 
tools that we have provided for in the trade promotion authority 
legislation to make sure this proposed deal, the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, gets the kind of careful scrutiny it deserves.
  We know the President, with not much time left in his administration, 
is looking for a legacy accomplishment. But this President's 
inconsistency with respect to free trade gives me great pause. I have 
to say that he can't take my support for granted or, I believe, the 
support of others in this Chamber for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, 
particularly if he acts so inconsistently on other free trade measures 
such as lifting the crude oil export ban.
  Moving forward, I hope the President will learn to work with those of 
us in Congress who have traditionally supported free trade in every 
respect. If he were truly the pro-trade President he claims to be, his 
administration would prioritize lifting the crude oil export ban with 
the same ferocity with which it supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Wyoming.


                    Waters of the United States Rule

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague for what he just 
said, and I want to also applaud the colleagues who today took a stand 
against the regulatory onslaught and overreach being waged by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. In promulgating the waters of the 
United States rule, or WOTUS, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers 
have teamed up to promulgate one of the most expansive Federal power 
grabs across the Nation.
  Recently, I spoke to this body about the threat that the growth and 
expansion of Federal regulations pose to this country's economic well-
being. The growth of Federal regulation and bureaucracy is a menacing 
threat to this country's security and success. What America needs now 
is a smaller, less burdensome regulatory framework that will permit our 
Nation's economy to thrive. With the $18 trillion of debt, we can only 
afford policies that will serve as a catalyst for economic growth.
  This waters of the United States rule is a prime example of a Federal 
agency coming up with regulations that do the precisely opposite. In 
the early 1970s, Congress passed the Clean Water Act and charged the 
EPA with protecting our Nation's navigable waters from pollutants. It 
has worked. Since then, the EPA and the Corps have been working to ever 
expand the definition and scope of ``navigable water,'' this time 
stretching the meaning all the way to the limits of common sense.
  With the waters of the United States rule, the administration has 
once again demonstrated a willingness to advance its own goal at any 
cost. Under this expansive new rule, the EPA may implement substantial 
additional permitting and regulatory requirements under the Clean Water 
Act without any thought to the employees who will lose their jobs, to 
the businesses or industries this rule will cripple.
  As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said earlier this week in a letter to 
this body, business owners and their employees in all sectors of the 
economy would be affected by the regulatory uncertainty of this rule, 
which is ``certain to chill the development and expansion of large and 
small projects across the country.''
  Again, this is not the kind of regulation America can afford. The 
waters of the United States rule is so expansive that it would redefine 
the jurisdiction of bodies of water under Federal control all the way 
down to, for example, all water located within 100 feet of other 
jurisdictional water. This is my favorite: The rule further includes 
all waters located within 1,500 feet of any other jurisdictional water, 
if it also is in the 100-year flood plain.
  I don't know about you, Mr. President, but I won't stand for giving 
any Federal agency--much less the EPA--five football fields worth of 
leeway to enforce any rules or regulations.
  As chairman of the Budget Committee, I seldom hear any agency talking 
about having enough resources. The EPA is not an exception. They can't 
take care of what they already do, and now they want to bite off every 
body of water in the United States. There is a lot of water that can be 
cleaned up. There is a lot of water that has been cleaned up. You 
always start with what is worse. I always tell people that Jesse James 
robbed banks because that is where the money was. You start where the 
most pollution is, not where the least pollution is.
  States already know best what makes their waters navigable, and they 
don't need a Federal rule like waters of the United States to constrain 
them. This is particularly true for the Western States, where water is 
a rare and protected source and is respected accordingly. In Idaho, a 
State which historically relied on streams to support its timber 
industry, lawmakers consider a stream navigable if it will float timber 
in excess of 6 inches of diameter or if it is capable of being 
navigated by oar. Six inches--that is not a very big log. If the State 
of Idaho protects streams small enough to float logs that size, they 
don't need a rule like WOTUS to further constrict what is considered 
navigable.
  At some point, the overregulation by the EPA and this administration 
has to

[[Page S7761]]

be stopped. Today we had an opportunity to do just that. By passing the 
resolution of disapproval, we have sent a message to the President, his 
administration, and all of its bureaucrats. Earlier this week, the body 
missed a keen opportunity to pass my friend Senator John Barrasso's 
bill to roll back this regulation. His bill would have sent the EPA and 
the Corps back to the drawing board to develop a new rule. It would 
have told them how to do it. It would have required them to conduct a 
thorough economic analysis and consult with States, consult with local 
governments, and consult with small businesses. Congress made a mistake 
in 1972 when it passed the Clean Water Act and left too much up to the 
EPA to define. We had a chance to fix that error with Senator 
Barrasso's bill.
  This rule allows the EPA to regulate any body of water that has a 
significant nexus to navigable water. Unfortunately, the rule leaves 
the definition of ``significant nexus'' open to the EPA's 
interpretation.
  Here is something that fascinates me. If you contest, guess who gets 
to make the ruling in the case. The EPA does. Guess how they are going 
to rule. As anyone from Wyoming would attest, never has a Federal 
bureaucrat missed an opportunity to make life a little more complicated 
for the folks out West. I can't possibly think of why I would give the 
EPA an opportunity to do so here.

  The Clean Water Act recognizes States as having primary 
responsibility for land and water resources within their boundaries. 
That is a responsibility taken very seriously in places like my home 
State of Wyoming, where so many farmers, ranchers, and small business 
owners rely on water for their livelihood. In Wyoming, folks know that 
you have to take care of the land or the land will never take care of 
you. You won't find better stewards for land and water anywhere, so if 
the folks in Wyoming tell you a rule governing the use of water is no 
good, you can take that to the bank.
  As the State's Governor Matt Mead said, this rule was bad from the 
start. In his words:

       The EPA failed to properly consult with states or consider 
     states' concerns. The rule unlawfully seeks to expand federal 
     jurisdiction over water, undercuts state primacy and burdens 
     landowners and water users in the West.

  Wyoming has joined 30 other States in suing the EPA and the Corps of 
Engineers to block this rule. If over 60 percent of the States in this 
Nation are spending time and money to ask the courts to block this 
rule, then this resolution should pass with flying colors. In fact, if 
the 2 Senators from each of the 31 States that are suing were to vote 
for either the resolution before or this resolution, the previous one 
would have passed cloture. This one didn't require cloture. So in 
passing this joint resolution of disapproval, our actions appropriately 
reflected what our States are telling us to do: Stop this rule.
  Two Federal courts have already recognized the fallacy of this rule 
and issued stays to prevent it from being enforced. Those courts have 
recognized what we should all recognize: the massive scope of this rule 
and the potential damage it could cause.
  Wyoming was lucky in that it got some relief from a U.S. district 
court judge before the rule could be enforced in late August. In that 
ruling by which the court stayed the rule's enforcement, the court 
said:

       The rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote 
     and intermittent. No evidence actually points to how these 
     intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to navigable-
     in-fact water.

  I couldn't have said it better.
  What the EPA is doing is more out of control than protection. It is 
an overreach, it is power, and they can't afford it. For the sake of 
farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and small businesses and their 
employees, it is time to stop this outrageous regulation.
  I thank the majority leader, Senator Barrasso, and Senator Ernst for 
recognizing how important it is to fight this bad EPA rule and bring 
legislation to the floor to push back.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to pass this resolution of 
disapproval so that we can send a clear message to the President that 
this Congress will not continue to accept ill-thought-out, ever-
expansive, unendingly complicated regulations from this administration, 
ones that the courts have already ruled on three times.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with Senators Carper, Warren, Murphy, Blumenthal, Schatz, and 
Brown for up to 1 hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          For-Profit Colleges

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I come to the Senate floor to 
discuss the issue of for-profit colleges. One may wonder how a Member 
of the U.S. Senate takes up an issue. This came to my attention when a 
young woman in Chicago, IL, contacted our office and told her story. 
She was a conscientious young woman who wanted a college education, 
and, having graduated high school, she shopped around on the Internet 
and found the degree she wanted. It was a degree in law enforcement 
offered by Westwood College. Westwood is a for-profit college based in 
Colorado.
  She enrolled in Westwood, and 5 years later--5 years of classes 
later--she got her diploma in law enforcement from Westwood. She took 
it to every law enforcement agency in the Chicagoland area, and they 
said: Young lady, this is not a real college; this is one of those for-
profit Westwood colleges. We don't recognize your degree.
  When she went to another place, she got the same reaction, and then 
she realized she had wasted 5 years of her life on a worthless diploma. 
But that is not the worst part. She incurred a student loan debt of 
$80,000 and she couldn't get a job. She moved back into her parents' 
basement. Her dad came out of retirement to help her pay off this loan, 
and she is going to take years to do it. She has postponed buying a 
car, getting her own apartment, or even considering marriage or a 
family. This was one personal tragedy that opened my mind.
  I used to drive out on the Kennedy Expressway and see Westwood 
College signs on these large, tall buildings and think, wow, this must 
be some college. Well, it turned out that it was part of a network of 
for-profit colleges and universities that I have been researching and 
speaking about ever since.
  When I started 5 years ago, it was a different industry than it is 
today. Too many people like this young lady ended up with empty 
promises, deep debt, and worthless diplomas from for-profit colleges 
and universities.
  Westwood isn't the only one. The biggest for-profit college is the 
University of Phoenix. DeVry University, based out of Chicago, IL, is 
the second largest. Kaplan--which used to own or was owned by the 
Washington Post, depending on your point of view--ITT Tech, and Le 
Cordon Bleu are names young people know right off the bat because they 
are inundated with advertising from for-profit schools. They and their 
parents think these are real schools. They think: It is worth my time. 
It is worth the debt to me and my family to pursue a degree.
  Five years ago, this industry was in its heyday. Enrollment and 
profits were sky high. They were a favorite of Wall Street investors. 
Between 1998 and 2008, enrollment at for-profit colleges exploded by 
225 percent. By 2010, total enrollment in these for-profit schools 
reached 2.4 million.
  When the former chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Tom Harkin of 
Iowa, released a report on the industry in 2012, they had grown to take 
an incredible share--$32 billion in Federal taxpayer dollars, 25 
percent of all the Federal aid to education. Despite the fact that they 
had 10 percent of the students, they were taking 25 percent of the 
Federal aid at that point. Why? They are so expensive. The tuition is 
so much higher than public colleges and universities or even many 
private colleges.
  Meanwhile, more than half the students who enrolled in for-profit 
colleges left without a degree within 4 months and found themselves in 
student loan default. Five years ago, 10 percent of the students 
accounted for 47 percent of the student loan defaults. How can it be 
that 47 percent of the students who can't pay back their student loans 
went to for-profit colleges? It costs so much and the degrees are 
worthless.
  John Murphy is a cofounder of the University of Phoenix. This was the 
mother ship of them all during the

[[Page S7762]]

great for-profit college movement. Here is what he said in the Deseret 
News National:

       They are not educators and they're looking to manipulate 
     this model to make money. There is nothing wrong with making 
     money, but I think anyone making money in an educational 
     activity has a higher standard of accountability.

  John Murphy, a cofounder of the University of Phoenix, is right. He 
explained that they started off as a serious venture to educate 
students, but they soon became a company listed on Wall Street chasing 
stock prices, tapping into the open spigot of Federal loans, which Mr. 
Murphy calls the juice of the for-profit college industry. He went on 
to say:

       Phoenix was the one that got it rolling, and then all the 
     other for-profits followed them in.

  I will yield at this point to my colleague from Hawaii. I thank 
Senator Schatz for joining me in this colloquy.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader 
for his leadership on this issue and for his willingness to educate 
colleagues and educate the public and to push the DOE to take much 
needed action in this area.
  What is happening with some for-profit colleges is truly a national 
scandal, and it is a scandal for two reasons: First, students are being 
hurt, and second, we are wasting tens of billions of dollars. The 
numbers speak for themselves. Almost 2 million students are enrolled in 
for-profit colleges, and they have collectively taken on $200 billion 
in debt to attend, but they often leave with little to show for it. 
More than half drop out within a few months, and in some programs less 
than 5 percent of their students ever graduate. For those who leave 
without a degree, repaying loans is a struggle. Students at for-profit 
colleges default on student loans at double the rate of students at 
not-for-profit colleges.
  People may be surprised to learn that these substandard programs are 
financed almost entirely by the Federal Government, and the amount is 
totally staggering. In total, for-profits receive over $32 billion a 
year in Federal financial aid--over 20 percent of the total aid--yet 
they serve only 12 percent of the students.
  There are several for-profit companies that each take in more than $1 
billion a year in Federal aid and graduate less than 10 percent of 
their students. Think about that. They take in more than $1 billion in 
Federal taxpayer money and they graduate less than 10 percent of their 
students. These companies include the Apollo Group, DeVry, ITT, Kaplan, 
and Education Management Corporation.
  Not only are the educational metrics awful, but many of these for-
profit colleges are also under investigation for fraud and deception. 
Essentially, they have been lying to students and to State and Federal 
agencies to cover up how bad their record is. Even while prosecutors go 
after these schools for fraud, they remain accredited and continue to 
rake in Federal funds. Here are a few examples:
  Education Management Corporation, EMC, faces charges of fraud and 
deception brought by prosecutors in 13 States and the Department of 
Justice and faces a lawsuit to recover $11 billion in Federal and State 
funds. Yet EMC is still accredited and still receives $1.25 billion 
from the U.S. DOE. So the Department of Justice is trying to recover 
$11 billion at the same time that the Department of Education gives 
them $1.25 billion.
  ITT Educational Services is being investigated and sued by 19 States, 
the SEC, CFPB, and the DOJ. It is also under scrutiny from U.S. DOE for 
failure to meet financial responsibility standards. Yet they are still 
accredited, and last year they received just under $600 million.
  Another 152 schools are under investigation by a working group of 37 
State attorneys general. They too are still accredited. Collectively, 
they received $8 billion in Federal financial aid last year.
  What do all of these schools have in common? They are accredited. 
Accreditation is the key to the castle for accessing this spigot of 
Federal financial aid. It is supposed to signify that a program 
provides a quality education for its students. Too often, however, the 
accreditation means nearly nothing.
  The GAO released a study on accreditation last year, and its findings 
are shocking. Over a 4-year period, the GAO found that accreditors 
sanctioned only 8 percent of the institutions they oversee and revoked 
accreditation for just 1 percent. Even more troubling, GAO found there 
was no correlation between accreditor sanctions and educational 
quality. In other words, schools with bad student outcomes were no more 
likely to be sanctioned by their accreditor than schools with good 
student outcomes.
  Our accreditation system is broken. According to the Higher Education 
Act, accreditation agencies are supposed to be ``reliable authorities 
as to the quality of education or training offered'' by institutions of 
higher education.
  That is the reason for making accreditation a core criterion for 
receiving Federal funds. How are we following the law when 
accreditation reviews find that 99 percent--basically, everybody--99 
percent of institutions are providing an education of value? How can we 
say with a straight face that accreditors are acting as reliable 
authorities on educational quality?
  The problem here is money. Incentives are lined up against being 
critical and against setting high standards. The problem can be traced 
to the funding and governance of the accrediting agencies. First, 
accrediting agencies are funded by the same institutions they accredit. 
Colleges pay an initial fee to become accredited and annual dues after 
that. They pay for site visits and other services.
  Second, accrediting agencies are run and overseen by the institutions 
they accredit. The member institutions elect their own academics and 
administrators to serve on the board of the accreditation agency.
  It is not hard to see how the incentives are misaligned here. We have 
created a dysfunctional, if not corrupt, ecosystem in which it is far 
too easy to become and remain accredited. This system is eerily similar 
to the one that enabled credit rating agencies to pump out inflated 
asset ratings, which contributed to the worst financial crisis of our 
time. Like credit rating agencies, accreditors have a financial 
interest to churn out accreditations.
  The DOE has the authority to improve accreditation. There are a lot 
of things that Senator Durbin and others, Senator Murphy, and I are 
working on in terms of changing the Higher Education Act and working in 
the appropriations context, but U.S. DOE has authority that it is 
beginning to use but needs to use more of in the accreditation space. 
It can and must do more to ensure that accreditors are actually looking 
at academic quality and holding schools to high standards. For the sake 
of students and taxpayers, the DOE must make this a top priority.
  I thank the assistant Democratic leader for his leadership on this 
issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Hawaii can stay 
for just a moment.
  If a student is about to graduate from high school, looking for a 
college, and goes online and types in the word ``college'' or 
``university,'' watch what happens. The page is flooded. The University 
of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan--all of these different schools are flooding 
the page saying: Come to our school. How does a student know if it is 
good or not? The only yardstick that can be used is, well, do they 
receive Federal Pell grants for their students? Do their students 
receive Federal loans? The answer, when it comes to for-profit schools, 
is yes.
  Senator Schatz has put his finger on the problem. They accredit 
themselves. They decide among themselves who will stay in business. 
Guess what. They all stay in business.
  So the unsuspecting student goes to a worthless, for-profit school, 
gets a worthless diploma, goes deep in debt, and thinks, I thought this 
was a good school. How can I get a Federal Pell grant to this school 
and get a worthless diploma?
  The Department of Education is not doing its job. Congress is not 
doing its job. We have to enforce these standards.
  Corinthian was one of the giants. Corinthian went bankrupt. They 
measured how many students came out of Corinthian and got a job. The 
numbers were pretty encouraging. The Huffington Post writer started 
following

[[Page S7763]]

the students that got the jobs. Do you know what Corinthian was doing? 
They were giving $2,000 to employers to hire their graduates for 1 
month so they could report to the Federal Government that their 
graduates all have jobs. When they were caught with it, they went 
bankrupt.
  Do my colleagues know what we ended up losing, what the Federal 
taxpayers lost? It could be billions. Who ended up on the hook? The 
students. The students ended up with the debt, and the taxpayers ended 
up as losers. Corinthian should never have been accredited.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, there are two problems here. Normally, 
when something is a waste of taxpayer money, it is not usually also 
harmful to individuals across the country, but this is a double whammy. 
This is harming students, causing them to collectively incur tens of 
billions of dollars' worth of debt, and it is a waste of money, so this 
really is a double whammy.
  I will make this final point: The Obama administration has done the 
right thing in terms of going after malfeasance in this space, but they 
are split among their executive agencies. We have the Department of 
Justice who understands the fraud and deception. We even have parts of 
the U.S. DOE that understands what is going on, yet they have been slow 
on the uptake in terms of using the authority under the statute to make 
the accreditation process a little more reliable when it comes to 
students. I think that is one of the key things that we are going to be 
able to accomplish in the next couple of years. The U.S. DOE has to 
understand that there are separate accrediting agencies, but under the 
higher education statute, U.S. DOE has the authority to make sure that 
no institution that is providing a low-quality education and no 
institution that is engaging in fraud and deception ought to avail 
themselves of tens of billions of dollars in Federal financing.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Hawaii.
  Last week, the senior Senator from Arizona came to the floor and said 
it was Durbin's speeches that brought down Corinthian. Correction: What 
brought down Corinthian was its own malfeasance. They were under 
investigation by 20 different attorneys general for fraud and 
deception. They were also under investigation by the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, the Department of Education, and the Department of 
Justice. It was their malfeasance that brought them down, as Senator 
Schatz has indicated. The victims: Students and taxpayers.
  For purposes of this colloquy, I wish to yield to my colleague from 
Delaware, Senator Carper.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator for inviting 
us to come to the floor this afternoon and have this conversation. It 
is great to be with our colleague from Hawaii as well.
  Senator Durbin and I came to the House of Representatives together in 
1982. I had been a State treasurer and before that I was a naval flight 
officer. I was a P-3 aircraft mission commander. I served three tours 
in Southeast Asia. In 1968, the P-3 four-engine aircrafts were on 12-
hour surveillance flights tracking Soviet nuclear submarines all over 
the world. We flew a lot of missions off the coast of Vietnam and 
Cambodia, low-level missions tracking infiltration. That is what I did 
on three tours over there.
  I came back from overseas after the last tour, 5 years, and moved 
from California where my station was home ported, where my squad was 
home ported during the war, and I ended up moving across the country. I 
found Delaware on the map, drove my Volkswagen across the country, and 
enrolled in business school.
  I signed up with the GI Bill. I remember the first check I got was 
$250. I was thrilled. I used that money to help pay my expenses, and I 
signed up with a Reserve P-3 aircraft squadron up at the naval air 
station north of Philly and started flying the same aircraft and a new 
squadron. I did that for another 18 years and then retired as a Navy 
captain.
  As Senator and as a Governor for 8 years and as commander in chief of 
the Delaware National Guard--they have a special spot in my heart. A 
couple of months ago, a delegation with the Governor were sending off 
the 300 men and women from the Delaware National Guard to eventually 
end up in Afghanistan. I suspect they are there by this time. I said to 
the men and women and their families as they were preparing to leave--I 
told them about my GI Bill and how grateful I was to have it for my 
generation. I talked to them about their GI Bill. I said: When you come 
home, if you have 3 years of service during your time in Afghanistan, 
here is what you are going to get. If you go to Delaware State 
University, University of Delaware, Delaware Tech Community College, 
you go for free--tuition, free; books, free; fees, tutoring, free. Plus 
you get a $1,500 a month housing allowance. People said: Wow. And I 
said: If the GI doesn't use it--the Delaware National Guardsman--if you 
guys don't use it when you come home, your spouse can use it. If your 
spouse doesn't use it, your dependent children can use it. It is the 
most incredible GI bill benefit ever. My generation, we got $250 a 
month. I am happy for the folks today who serve in Afghanistan and in 
Iraq for the benefit they receive.
  It has not only been a great benefit for the veterans and their 
families, it puts in the words of--I think it is Polly Petraeus who 
works at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Polly said that what 
the GI bill does is it also puts a silver bull's-eye on the veterans 
because they come back and what happens is a lot of colleges and 
universities and training schools want to help those GIs and their 
spouses and maybe their kids go to school. Some of them are for-profits 
and some of them are non-profits; some of them are public colleges and 
universities. Some of them do a great job. Some of the for-profits even 
do a great job. But some of them--and the Senator from Illinois has 
mentioned some of them here today--do not. They spend more money on 
trying to recruit people to come to their schools than they actually 
spend educating them. They are preparing them for careers, allegedly, 
for what there are no jobs. Senator Durbin mentioned what Corinthian 
has done to place people in work opportunities for a month or so just 
so it will look like people are being gainfully employed.
  There is a lot of money to be made by these for-profit colleges and 
universities, and for the ones that aren't the white hats but the black 
hats, what is happening to the GIs and, frankly, to taxpayers is 
shameful. It is just shameful.
  I want to say around maybe 1992, maybe the early 1990s, maybe on this 
floor, the Senate debated whether or not there should be some way to 
harness market forces to ensure that--whether it is people using Pell 
grants or other Federal aid programs, or maybe the GI bill--they could 
somehow harness market forces to ensure that taxpayer money going to 
people going to college was being well used. Initially, when the 
Congress adopted something called the 85-15 rule, the idea was that for 
at least 15 percent of the students in the school, if they were 
receiving Federal assistance, 85 percent of those students would have 
to be coming on nonFederal money. That seemed to make sense, so for a 
while, that worked pretty well.
  Then the rule was changed to the 90-10 rule so that at least 10 
percent of the revenues had to come from nonFederal sources. The idea 
was to use market forces to ensure that the quality of the diploma was 
actually worthwhile at the school.
  Then, we had this new GI bill. We have spent, I think--and the 
Senator from Illinois probably knows better than me, but I think we 
have spent today close to $50 billion on the Iraq-Afghanistan GI bill, 
close to $50 billion. It probably dwarfs whatever we spent for folks 
coming back from the Vietnam war.
  Some of the smart for-profit colleges figured out a loophole, though, 
and what they figured out is the law, when it was first adopted, didn't 
really focus on the GI bill because it wasn't all that robust, and the 
90-10 rule--85-15 and 90-10--focused on things that did not include the 
GI bill. So when veterans go to college and the GI bill helped to pay 
for their tuition, or for that of their spouses or their children, that 
does not count toward the 90 percent.
  So as a result, what we have is a loophole that allows a college or 
university, a private college or university, to realize as much as 100 
percent of their revenues from the Federal Government--100 percent. 
There is nothing

[[Page S7764]]

about market forces; 10 percent, 15 percent of your students have to 
come by nonFederal means. All of them are there on the Federal 
Government's dole.
  Among the people who pushed for the 85-15 rule, I think, were Bob 
Dole and Phil Gramm, and they said a long time ago that we ought to 
have something like the 90-10 rule. A couple of years before that, the 
guy that Senator Durbin will remember named William Bennet--remember 
him, the Secretary of Education--here is what he called for-profit 
trade schools. Here is what he called them in 1987. He said:

       Diploma mills, designed to trick the poor and to take on 
     Federally-backed debt, milk them for their loan money and 
     then wash them out or graduate them, ill-prepared to enter 
     the job market and pay off their loans.

  That is what he called them. As I said earlier, there are some for-
profits that do a good job, but there are a bunch that don't. That was 
the case in 1987 and, unfortunately, it is the case today.
  I just want to say we--you have, I have, Tom Harkin in past years--
have continuously drawn this to the attention of our colleagues and 
anybody who wants to listen this issue. This needs to be fixed. It 
needs to be fixed.
  I thank Senator Durbin for working so hard and letting me help him a 
little bit on this stuff. I think we are starting to break 
through. Some of the folks who are the worst actors in this business 
are starting to fold, and that is a good thing.

  Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank Senator Carper.
  Let me show the Senator briefly what has happened to the enrollment 
of for-profit colleges and universities as people have come to realize 
they are wasting their time, and many times their GI bill benefits, 
debt, and ending up with a diploma that doesn't take them anywhere.
  Look at the University of Phoenix--this is the mother ship that 
launched this industry--peak enrollment was nearly 500,000 in 2010. Now 
it is 227,000, a nearly 50-percent loss.
  ITT, which advertises constantly, had enrollment in 2010 of 88,000, 
and now they are down to 53,000. Career Education Corporation enrolled 
41,000 students in 2014 compared to 118,000 in 2010--a 65-percent 
decrease. Education Management Corporation is down 25 percent. DeVry 
has declined in enrollment. What is happening here?
  I talked to some of the people from some of these for-profit 
colleges. Parents and families are finally realizing that this is a 
waste of time and money. It is time for taxpayers to realize the same 
thing. I overhear my colleagues--conservative colleagues--preaching to 
me about the miracle of free markets. We are talking about the most 
heavily subsidized industry in America, accounting for over 40 percent 
of the student loan defaults with 10 percent of the students enrolled.
  I thank the Senator from Delaware for coming, and I yield to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren.
  Ms. WARREN. I thank the Presiding Officer and thank Senator Durbin 
for calling us together to discuss this important issue.
  Our higher education system is broken. Right now a student borrows 
money to go to college, and the college gets paid in full regardless of 
whether the college provides a decent education. In fact, Federal loan 
money is so easy to come by that a new business model of for-profit 
colleges has sprung up, spending more money on advertising to attract 
students than actually teaching them anything.
  Consider three numbers--10, 20, 40. Just over 10 percent of all 
college students attend a for-profit college. Yet they take in about 20 
percent of all Federal student aid and they account for about 40 
percent of all student loan defaults. Many for-profit colleges target 
young vets and single moms for programs that promise the Moon but end 
up delivering nothing more than heartache.
  I have met with student veterans at terrific public colleges and 
universities across Massachusetts, such as UMass Lowell and Bunker Hill 
Community College. These schools are working hard to reach vets and to 
help them get a first-rate education through their Office of Veterans 
Service and other resources. It is an exciting story, but time after 
time the for-profit colleges got there first, so young vets show up 
already tens of thousands of dollars in debt and without a single 
credit that will transfer to a decent public college. This makes me 
sick. These for-profit schools are stealing more than money. They are 
stealing the hard work and dreams of some of our finest young people.
  There are 347 colleges in the United States in which the majority of 
the students have defaulted or failed to begin paying down their loans. 
Of these colleges, 85 percent are for-profit. Even with those huge 
default rates keep raking in the Federal loan dollars and paying out 
millions of dollars in dividends to their shareholders. These 294 for-
profits are sucking down $2.2 billion in Federal assistance and leaving 
the majority of their students unable to repay their loans.
  The business model of for-profit colleges challenges the conventional 
wisdom that a college degree is always a smart investment. A recent 
study found that the average salary increase of for-profit graduates 
isn't even enough to cover the costs of attending a typical for-profit 
institution. The research is clear: attendance at a typical for-profit 
college is simply not worth the cost. It is a bad return on investment.
  For-profit colleges know this, but too often the potential students 
don't. Instead of taking the tough steps necessary to improve the value 
of the education they offer, most of these for-profit institutions have 
simply ramped up their marketing operations--and some just flatout 
break the law--to keep the gravy train going. These colleges have 
engaged in fraud in order to swindle more and more students and suck 
down more and more Federal funds.
  Corinthian College is a prime example. At its peak, Corinthian was 
the Nation's largest for-profit chain, with 120 campuses enrolling over 
100,000 students. It was massive. Corinthian built its business model 
to scoop up Federal financial aid by any means necessary--including 
fraud. Corinthian was trying to rope students in by using false and 
misleading information and then saddling them with debt that would be 
impossible to repay.
  Federal policymakers had concerns about Corinthian's conduct for 
years and had the tools to shut off the Federal loan supply, but 
instead of acting, the Department of Education allowed Corinthian to 
keep recruiting more and more students and sucking down more and more 
Federal funds. When Corinthian's dangerous mix of mismanagement and 
deception finally blew up, the Department of Education even stepped in 
to bail out the college and keep it running a little while longer. Now 
Corinthian is bankrupt and its students are scrambling to start over.
  Last week--due to a lawsuit brought by the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau--a Federal judge ruled Corinthian broke Federal 
consumer protection laws and ordered the company to pay $531 million 
for its illegal behavior, but Corinthian is dead broke, and its 
executives are off the hook for the financial liability. Plus students 
and taxpayers are left holding the bag.
  Corinthian got people to sign up for student loans by scamming them. 
If an insurance salesman or a car dealer did that, the buyer wouldn't 
have to pay. The law is just as clear here, when a school breaks the 
law, students are entitled to cancel their student loans. That is why 
this week several of my Democratic colleagues are sending a letter to 
the Department of Education telling them they have dragged their feet 
long enough. These students don't owe the student loans that Corinthian 
tricked them into signing.
  Schools like Corinthian make it clear that the Federal Government 
needs to be more aggressive and more willing to cut off the money 
faster when schools defraud students. When schools such as Corinthian 
break the law, their executives shouldn't be allowed to walk away from 
the mess. They should pay real penalties.
  This is about basic fairness. Neither students nor taxpayers should 
be on the hook to a for-profit college that makes its money by cheating 
its students. It is time for the Federal Government to step up and do 
its job to hold for-profit colleges accountable and to ensure that 
higher education remains a real pathway to success for all hard-working 
students.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor back to Senator Durbin.

[[Page S7765]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. I thank Senator Warren, and before we recognize the 
Senator from Connecticut, I would like to make a point about executive 
compensation, which is something we should not overlook.
  We take a look at the actual amount of money that is being paid to 
executives of these for-profit colleges and universities. It is 
dramatically larger than what is being paid to presidents of public 
universities. I will put this information in the Record at a later 
point.
  The average pay for college presidents is less than $500,000 a year. 
There is an executive at the University of Phoenix who was paid over $8 
million in 1 year. When we wrote to the Department of Justice recently, 
we asked how many of these people are going to be held personally 
accountable. They left the students holding the bag with student loans 
and worthless diplomas or dropouts. They left the taxpayers holding the 
bag because the students can't pay back their loans, and now they are 
going to go away scot-free after taking billions of Federal dollars? If 
there is any justice, they need to be held accountable.
  I yield to my colleague Senator Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY. I thank Senator Durbin very much.
  This article is a few years old, but it underscores his point. Here 
is the opening line of an article from CNBC on this question of 
salaries for the CEOs of for-profit universities. The article opens by 
saying: ``Forget Wall Street and Silicon Valley. If you're looking to 
rake it in post-graduation, set your sights on the executive floor at 
one of the nation's for-profit colleges.''
  That is an article from CNBC detailing the fact that in their 
article--again this is a few years old--the salary of the head of 
Phoenix University was $11 million, and the CEO of Bridgepoint, another 
national for-profit university, was making over $20 million a year.
  You can say to yourself: These are private, for-profit companies. Why 
should Congress be in the business of caring what the CEO of Phoenix 
University makes or what the CEO of Bridgepoint or ITT or DeVry makes?
  Harry Truman made his name as a critic of wartime profiteering. LBJ 
made his name as a young Member of Congress doing the same. Their idea 
was that it is all well and good to make yourself rich in the most 
dynamic capitalist economy in the world, but it is another thing to be 
getting rich off the taxpayers. It is another thing to be making your 
fortune almost exclusively coming from sources of money that really is 
all of our constituents' money in the form of the taxes they pay.
  That is what we are talking about today. What we are talking about 
are executives who are getting rich off of companies that are 90 
percent funded by the U.S. taxpayer because this 90-10 rule we talked 
about is an important rule for these companies. They run their revenue 
right up to the limit. So for many of these for-profit universities, 
their revenue is 70, 80, 90 percent from the taxpayers of the United 
States, and their CEOs are making $11 million, $12 million, sometimes 
$20 million a year.
  Listen, I am all for people making a million dollars. I have a lot of 
people in Connecticut who are making $20 million, but if we are being 
good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, we should be wary of those who 
are making their fortune off of the Federal dole. That is what is 
happening today.
  Senator Durbin, I just wanted to add in this conversation a note of 
accountability. That is one of the things that used to unite 
Republicans and Democrats. Frankly, the Republicans, I admit, cared 
more about accountability in Federal dollars than sometimes the 
Democrats did. It was the Republicans in the second Bush administration 
who started attaching strings to education dollars that were flowing 
out of Washington to make sure there was actually quality attached to 
the money that was coming from U.S. Federal taxpayers, but that era 
seems to be over.
  Unfortunately, we don't have a bipartisan consensus on 
accountability. We are about to approve a budget that a lot of 
Republicans and a lot of Democrats will vote for that will send $140 
billion in higher education aid to universities all across this 
country. It will come with almost no strings attached. It will come 
with almost no expectations that schools give a degree to kids that 
will actually get them a job or attempt to keep them in school so they 
can get some return on investment for the money we are all paying to 
them.
  Senator, you might have talked about it already today, but the 
numbers of for-profit colleges that just came out today are absolutely 
stunning. I don't know if you talked about the ``Trends in Student 
Aid'' report that just came out today from the College Board.
  Here is an amazing statistic. What this survey says is that borrowers 
who don't graduate from public and private nonprofit 4-year schools 
default at about the same rate as borrowers who do graduate from for-
profit schools. Think about that. You are just as likely to not be able 
to pay back your student loan if you get a degree from a for-profit 
school as if you had dropped out of a not-for-profit school.
  Here are the numbers: 14 percent of for-profit graduates default; 15 
percent of not-for-profit 4-year college nongraduates default. That is 
a really stunning number. Yet we are just sending money willy-nilly out 
to these schools that are not putting students in degrees. Why are they 
not putting students in degrees? Because they are marketing themselves 
in a way that just does not square with the job market today.
  As part of one of these attorney general lawsuits--there is a litany 
of stories about the abusive marketing techniques of these for-profit 
universities.
  One of them said: I told the enrollment representative that I did not 
want to sign the loan unless I was guaranteed a job because I knew that 
I would not be able to pay it back. She told me that the school placed 
99 percent of the students and they could guarantee a job after I 
finished my externship. She told me that I would be making between $18 
and $20 an hour after completing the program. No worries about the 
loan. She told me career services could place me in a job and that she 
makes sure everybody who enrolls gets placed.
  These are the claims that are being made. So it is frankly not 
surprising, when you have these for-profit universities enrolling 
thousands of kids in video game design degrees, that you are just as 
likely to default on a loan if you graduate from some of those 
worthless programs as if you don't graduate from a not-for-profit 
university.
  So last Congress, Senator Schatz and I, joined by Senator Murray and 
Senator Sanders, introduced a piece of legislation that would start to 
require some real outcomes from universities. We applied it to for-
profit and not-for-profit universities. We said: You have to show that 
you are giving kids a chance to succeed and get a job, that you are 
keeping your tuition at reasonable levels. If you do that, then you can 
continue to get title IV dollars.
  But if they don't, we are not going to continue to send money to 
these schools that simply are not producing graduates who are ready to 
compete or that are deceptively drawing students in based on claims 
that just do not wash out in the end.
  So, yes, we have to shut down these fraudulent institutions like 
Corinthian. But we could just make a decision, Republicans and 
Democrats, to put some additional accountability standards on title IV 
dollars, apply it to for-profit and not-for-profit schools, and say: If 
you have a certain number of students who are defaulting, you are not 
going to continue to get title IV dollars. If you have a rate of 
tuition increase that is way above that of the national average, you 
are not going to continue to get title IV dollars.
  We know by statistics that this would put a good number of for-
profits out of business. It might even touch a handful of the lower 
performing not-for-profits. But it should be something on which both 
sides can come together, just some basic accountability for higher 
education, a basic accountability for the $140 billion we send, because 
this does not make sense. It does not make sense to pad the pockets of 
these CEOs who are making $20 million a year off of our taxpayers when 
they are not delivering results that are actually making our economy 
better.
  Thank you, Senator Durbin, for bringing us together here. I hope that 
as we debate the Higher Education Reauthorization Act in front of the 
HELP

[[Page S7766]]

Committee--I think Senator Alexander is very interested in some of 
these debates. So we are going to add some accountability standards. We 
are talking about these for-profits, but if we really are being good 
stewards of the taxpayer dollars, we should expect some results.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank Senator Murphy for his comments.
  I will tell you that it is interesting to me that when you take a 
look at what Wall Street thinks about the for-profit colleges and 
universities, they are certainly bearish. You would think from what 
Congress is doing--sending billions of dollars to this industry and 
propping it up--we are bullish. Take a look at the stock prices of the 
major for-profit colleges and universities since 2010. The University 
of Phoenix went from a high of $57 a share down to $7.50. This was 
after the Department of Defense suspended their activities under the GI 
bill. ITT Tech--a high of $92 a share in 2011 and they now trade at $3 
a share. Career Education was $20 a share in 2011 and was $3.80 
yesterday. Education Management Corporation withdrew their stock from 
NASDAQ so they would not have to make reports to the Securities and 
Exchange Commission. In 2014, they lost $684 million. This is an 
industry which is failing as a business, but sadly it is dragging along 
students and families and taxpayers with it. That is why we have to 
come to grips.
  I endorse your idea. Apply the standards across higher education, to 
for-profit and not-for-profit. I can tell you, these for-profits cannot 
live with that standard. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
  I thank Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut for joining me.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my great colleague from 
Illinois and my friend and partner from Connecticut for their very 
powerful analysis, along with Senator Warren and Senator Carper, 
because there really is a need for dispassionate, objective, and 
targeted consideration of this area of education.
  The Senator from Connecticut is absolutely right that we need 
accountability in both the for-profit and nonprofit areas. Senator 
Durbin has emphasized that fact repeatedly. I am here as a former 
member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee who 
participated with Senator Harkin in announcing a report more than 2 
years ago that highlighted many of the abuses in this area. Still, 
Corinthian has happened since then. There are still abuses in the for-
profit area. But there is a need for accountability in the nonprofit 
area as well.
  In all of these areas, there is a need for facts. There are more 
facts that may be available more recently that ought to be considered, 
indications that some of the for-profit colleges are doing a better job 
than others. Kaplan, for example, has recently released facts. None of 
us can vouch for them independently. The Department of Education has an 
obligation to do better and more to make sure it keeps faith with 
American students and American taxpayers in the way dollars are 
allocated to those for-profits.
  I am particularly concerned, as the ranking member of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, with the impact of some of these abusive practices 
on veterans. One of the really unacceptable facts about this industry 
is the way it can sometimes exploit and take advantage of our veterans. 
Senator Carper put it very well when he discussed how the for-profit 
schools are prohibited from receiving more than 90 percent of their 
total revenue from Federal student aid, but VA educational benefits are 
not counted toward that 90 percent. This 90/10 loophole causes the for-
profits to target veterans and to rake in billions of dollars in VA 
educational benefits. In fiscal year 2014, the for-profit schools 
received over $2 billion in VA educational benefits--that is our money, 
taxpayer funds--including post-9/11 GI benefits.
  As ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am 
working to help protect our Nation's veterans and the GI bill benefits 
they have earned. In fact, I have introduced legislation--the Career-
Ready Student Veterans Act--to ensure that GI bill funding is not 
squandered on education programs that lack appropriate programmatic 
accreditation.
  Facts are stubborn things, as Ronald Reagan famously said. Facts are 
what we need. Accreditation and verification and credibility in this 
area is essential rather than painting with a broad brush every for-
profit, rather than tarring all of them. Facts are necessary here, and 
there is a need for accreditation and for facts that show credibility 
and legitimate course work.
  I will be introducing another bill this week to provide relief to 
veteran students who have been harmed by for-profit schools. I want to 
repeat that point. These veterans have been harmed directly and 
tragically by some of these practices. We owe them better. We need to 
keep faith with them. That is the reason I am going to be introducing 
the Veterans Education Relief and Reinstatement Act. That will give the 
VA Secretary authority to reinstate GI bill entitlements that a veteran 
has used at a school that abruptly closed--think Corinthian--where 
veterans have lost those benefits and they need a remedy, not just a 
right but a remedy.
  I am hopeful that we can advance these bills through the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee and stop for-profit colleges like Corinthian from 
scamming our Nation's veterans. Like my colleagues, I could cite real-
life instances of nonveterans as well. But the evidence is 
overwhelming, and it is acknowledged by some in the industry who say 
there is a need for corrective measures here, and some of the outliers 
need to be treated with the strong discipline and discouragement they 
merit.
  I am proud to join my colleagues in this effort. I am hopeful that 
the report Senator Harkin and the HELP Committee produced years ago 
will finally reach fruition and that action will be taken by the 
Department of Education and by this Senate to take measures that 
protect taxpayer dollars, protect students of America, and protect our 
veterans.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator 
Blumenthal, for joining in this colloquy this afternoon.
  What we have tried to do with a number of Senators is to lay out the 
case that when we go to higher education reauthorization, we owe the 
taxpayers and we owe families across America the responsibility to look 
at this industry. What is happening here in inexcusable and 
unacceptable. It is unfair. Ten percent of the high school graduates, 
20 percent of the Federal aid education, 40 percent of all student loan 
defaults.
  Senator Murphy pointed to the statistics that came out today. You are 
in just as bad shape with a diploma from a for-profit school as if you 
drop out of school at a not-for-profit school. That is a damning 
statistic, just like the 40 percent in student loan defaults.
  We cannot continue to look the other way. Wall Street is not looking 
the other way; they are downgrading these for-profit colleges and 
universities because they believe this model is flawed. They don't 
believe it can be sustained. Why do we kid ourselves? Let's apply 
standards across higher education--standards that are fair to students, 
fair to families, and fair to the schools--and say to them: This is 
what we expect as a minimum if you are going to offer higher education 
to the students across America.
  I ask unanimous consent that this transcript from Sharyl Attkisson's 
television program ``Full Measure'' which played last Sunday be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Transcript


                  sharyl attkisson's ``full measure''

                    (Aired Sunday, November 1, 2015)

       Washington (Sinclair Broadcast Group).--Some for-profit 
     colleges are allegedly preying on military troops; veterans 
     with benefits and a desire to build a new life become 
     targets.
       They've even been given a name by some college recruiters: 
     cash cows.
       About 300 thousand vets get up to $21K a year in G.I. Bill 
     money. In all, 1800 colleges--many of them for profits--have 
     received more than $20 billion G.I. Bill tax dollars.
       With so many billions in the mix, it's easy to see why some 
     colleges use high pressure and allegedly dishonest tactics. 
     Now, taxpayers are about to be on the hook for alleged 
     misconduct by the schools.
       As a U.S. Marine, Bryan Babcock fought on the front lines 
     in Iraq including the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004. His 
     post-military plan: police work. He used his GI Bill money to 
     pursue a criminal justice degree at the for-profit college 
     ITT Tech.
       Attkisson: How did you hear about it?

[[Page S7767]]

       Babcock: I saw a commercial on TV. That kind of got me 
     interested in them.
       Babcock says ITT promised that police agencies everywhere 
     would accept the degree. The cost--$70,000--would far exceed 
     his GI Bill grant at the time, but ITT made it easy for 
     Babcock to borrow. He says they even helped him fill out 
     paperwork for student loans. Then, after his third year, he 
     made a startling discovery.
       Babcock: We applied to 22 or 23 police departments.
       Attkisson: And what did they say?
       Babcock: All of them said that they did not recognize ITT's 
     degrees or their credits.
       Attkisson: And what thoughts went through your head when 
     you heard this?
       Babcock: I was angry that I'd spent all this money in 
     student loans and it turns out that the degree, if I would 
     have finished there, would have been pretty much worthless.
       It's a story told by thousands of vets who attended for-
     profit colleges where students are more likely to drop out, 
     default on their loans, or graduate in dire debt without a 
     useful degree.
       Of eight for-profits that get the most GI bill funds, seven 
     have been targets of inquiries for possible violations 
     including deceptive or misleading recruiting.
       Together, they received nearly a billion ($939,086,610 
     million) tax dollars over two school years.
       One of those companies is DeVry University where Chris 
     Neiweem was hired as the school recruited vets under the new 
     GI Bill.
       A veteran himself, Neiweem was assigned to ``Team Camo'' 
     where he says managers urged the sales team to use high-
     pressure tactics on troops who sometimes weren't suited for 
     college.
       ``Working in the industry at that time truly reminded me of 
     the film `Glengarry Glen Ross,' '' he said.
       ``There is this scene where a corporate sales manager is 
     brought in to improve the performance of the sales floor--
     played by Alec Baldwin.''
       In the scene, Baldwin says to a salesman ``they're sitting 
     out there waiting to give you their money, are you gonna take 
     it?''
       ``And that was similar at the company,'' said Neiweem.
       If ``Team Camo'' dared to let veterans suspend class while 
     in combat like those in the National Guard Neiweem says 
     management called them on the carpet.
       Neiweem: The company didn't care. They just wanted to make 
     sure that they stayed in their classes and so the university 
     could continue to be paid and they would continue to be on 
     the enrollments books.
       Attkisson: Even if they were in a combat zone that didn't 
     make sense for them to try to go to college on the computer?
       Neiweem: Yes. Management's guiding wisdom was, to be frank, 
     ``get their ass in class.''
       Neiweem showed Full Measure today's sales tactics at work.
       In a chat on DeVry's website, he asks about costs and 
     benefits--but can't get direct answers.
       ``I can have a representative from our military admissions 
     team reach out to you,'' he said, reading the response of a 
     recruiter.
       ``It's fairly frustrating that I asked these questions and 
     I can't get answers. Rather, they're trying to sort of tie me 
     in and get me closer so they can work towards selling the 
     school.''
       DeVry officials declined an on camera interview but said 
     ``DeVry has a long history of serving veterans and military 
     personnel'' dating back to the 1940's. And ``['W]e offer 
     quality academics and student services with flexibility to 
     meet their busy schedules.''
       Former Congressman Steve Gunderson leads the main national 
     for-profit college trade group called the Association of 
     Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU).
       ``If anybody has a bad outcome, and certainly if a veteran 
     has a bad outcome, that's a problem and we want to solve 
     that,'' he said.
       He believes for-profits are under assault from opponents 
     and competitors.
       Gunderson: I have never before seen a situation where a 
     sector is the target of attacks for ideological reasons. I 
     mean, there simply are good people who do not believe the 
     private sector oughta be involved in the design and delivery 
     of education.
       Attkisson: Fair enough, but is there any doubt in your mind 
     that some schools have used unfair, unethical, or even 
     dishonest tactics?
       Gunderson: There is no doubt in my mind that there are bad 
     schools in every sector of higher education who have engaged 
     in inappropriate conduct for various reasons whether it be 
     athletics or whether it be admissions or it be something 
     else.
       Gunderson said the industry is improving.
       A Government Accountability Office report found for-profits 
     catering to military students actually beat public schools in 
     one area: higher graduation rates.
       With billions flowing to for-profits under investigation, 
     President Obama dispatched a warning at Ft. Stewart army base 
     about any for profits that may be preying on the troops.
       ``It's not right. They're trying to swindle and hoodwink 
     you. They don't care about you; they care about the cash,'' 
     he said.
       But as federal scrutiny surged, the industry has countered 
     with Washington lobbyists and campaign cash.
       Since 2010, for-profit colleges have poured nearly $10 
     million ($9,906,512) into campaign contributions and spent 
     $41 ($41,924,452) million on lobbying, according to the 
     Center for Responsive Politics.
       Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois): That's how you really win 
     friends and influence people on Capitol Hill. The for-profit 
     colleges and universities have friends in high places.
       Attkisson: That implies some members in Congress, you 
     think, are bought and paid for on this issue.
       Sen. Durbin: I would say this--they are influenced by it.
       Senator Durbin has pushed one bill after another to fight 
     for-profit college fraud, only to see the bills get watered 
     down and voted down.
       ``If these schools that are enticing kids into loans for 
     educations that are worthless had some `skin in the game,' 
     some responsibility for default, they'd think twice about it. 
     But they don't. They could care less,'' he said.
       It turns out taxpayers have the most skin in the game.
       In June, the federal government said it will forgive loans 
     for students at Corinthian College, putting taxpayers on the 
     hook for up to $3.5 billion. Corinthian shut down in May amid 
     fraud accusations, which the company denied. And the feds may 
     wipe out loans at other problematic colleges.
       In May, the federal government charged Babcock's alma 
     mater, ITT Tech, with fraud, alleging it concealed financial 
     information from investors.
       ITT is fighting the charges, but declined our interview 
     request.
       Gunderson says he doubts Babcock's ITT degree would have 
     really been useless.
       ``I am willing to say, that if he graduated, from an 
     accredited criminal justice program, there are many police 
     agencies that would hire him. Maybe not the one he wanted to 
     go to, but there are many that will, and evidence all across 
     the country shows that,'' said Gunderson.
       Babcock gave up on the ITT degree and his dream of police 
     work. Instead, he's focused on warning other vets, and 
     working to pay down his $40 thousand student loan debt.
       ``I think it's a shame that they prey on men and women that 
     volunteered to protect this country. And that earned a 
     benefit with their service, and then ITT and the other for-
     profit schools are just trying to take that,'' he said.
       The Defense Department recently banned the University of 
     Phoenix from recruiting on military bases, alleging a pattern 
     of violating policies designed to protect military students. 
     Senator Durbin says ITT is now facing investigations by the 
     Justice Department and 18 Attorneys General.

  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor, and 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. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Waters of the United States Rule and the EPA

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about our vote on 
the waters of the United States and the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  I noted that the White House has lately been advocating for criminal 
justice reform. They say an underlying problem with the justice system 
today is that Congress criminalized too much conduct too severely. But 
it is the same White House that is behind the new waters of the United 
States regulation--an Executive power grab that would effectively put 
every landowner in Arkansas and in America at risk of Federal criminal 
charges for making adjustments to land on their own private property.
  The waters of the United States regulation gives the government 
jurisdiction--and, in turn, the danger of Federal criminal charges--
over tributaries, adjacent waters, and ``other waters.'' This includes 
streams that only exist after heavy rains or, as some of us call them, 
mud puddles.
  If a landowner in Arkansas has so much as a ditch on his or her 
property, he or she could be liable for Federal criminal charges for 
disturbing that ditch in any way. If a homeowner wants to add an 
addition to his garage and this addition even touches ``land that fills 
with water after rain,'' also known as just ``land,'' this homeowner 
could be liable for Federal criminal charges.
  President Obama and my Democratic colleagues argue that we are 
exaggerating: Come on, they say; the Environmental Protection Agency 
would never bring charges against a homeowner for expanding his garage 
or trying to regulate a mud puddle.
  They insist on the benevolence of the EPA and ask us to trust them to 
exercise good judgment and reasonable discretion. Before we trust the 
EPA's benevolence, though, it is prudent to examine the EPA's own track 
record.

[[Page S7768]]

  Let's consider that in August of this year, the EPA directed 
contractors to excavate the Gold King Mine in Colorado without first 
testing the water pressure or calculating water volume. In the worst 
environmental disaster in recent years, the EPA caused more than 3 
million tons of toxic wastewater to pollute the Animas River.
  Since the spill, much of the toxicity remains, endangering farmers, 
landowners, Native Americans, and anyone who relies on this river. 
After the spill, the EPA has refused to turn over documents, 
disciplined no one, failed to show up to congressional hearings, 
refused to take responsibility, and still won't answer the simple 
question of whether the Agency will pay for the damages it caused.
  The Navajo Nation in New Mexico relies on the river polluted by the 
EPA for drinking water and for farming. In the days following the 
spill, the Navajo lost their water supply. The EPA offered to deliver 
clean water that the Navajo could use for drinking and crop irrigation 
but, instead, they used dirty oil tankers to deliver contaminated 
water.
  The EPA is not only a threat to citizens, to landowners, and to 
businesses, but it is also a threat to the environment they purport to 
protect. Since the disaster, the EPA has continued to spill toxic 
wastewater into creeks and rivers. There has been zero accountability 
for this Agency.
  Based on that track record, I don't think we should be giving the EPA 
any more power. That is why I joined my colleagues earlier today to 
vote to roll back the waters of the United States regulation before the 
EPA criminalizes nearly every landowner in the United States.
  But we should also consider the bigger picture. This regulation is a 
symptom, not the problem. The problem is the EPA itself--its overreach 
and lack of accountability.
  That is why we must pass the EPA Accountability Act. This legislation 
would require the EPA to pay--out of its own budget--for the damages it 
recklessly caused when spilling 3 million gallons of toxic waste into 
the Animas River. Unless the EPA faces consequences for its actions 
against the American people, nothing will change. It is our 
constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of an agency that 
has caused massive damage to both the American people and to the 
environment.
  We must protect Arkansans and Americans from EPA overreach and lack 
of accountability.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Mr. President, what is our parliamentary posture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the motion to proceed to H.R. 
2685.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 
minutes to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          ``El Faro'' Tragedy

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, on the morning of October 1, the El Faro 
cargo ship--a container ship almost 900-feet long--was carrying 33 men 
and women, and on that fateful day it sent its final communication, 
reporting that the engines were disabled. This left the ship drifting 
with no power, with an oncoming category 3 hurricane. Despite search-
and-rescue attempts by the Coast Guard, the El Faro and her crew were 
not heard from again.
  One month later, the National Transportation Safety Board, working 
with the U.S. Navy, has found the sunken El Faro at the bottom of the 
ocean in waters that are 15,000 feet deep. At nearly the same time, the 
ship's owner, TOTE Maritime, began its attempt to limit the company's 
liability for this tragedy.
  News reports have indicated that the company filed a complaint last 
week stating that the company did everything in its power to make the 
ship safe and that the company ought to be exonerated from any and all 
claims for all damages.
  Well, this is clearly hasty decisionmaking. It clearly is a matter of 
concern to me because most of these mariners were from my State of 
Florida. Their families are grieving and hoping for any answers as to 
what happened to their loved ones.
  Well, right now, we don't have all of those answers. The NTSB only 
just found the ship with the help of the U.S. Navy, and yet somehow the 
company is able to definitely declare that they weren't at fault and 
that they bear no responsibility for the loss. It seems that this is an 
attempt to limit any liability of the company.
  So this is a time when we need reflection for figuring out what 
happened to the El Faro, for finding the ship's recorder, which the 
U.S. Navy is now in the process of trying to find, and then once you 
have that black box, for piecing together the ship's last minutes 
before the ship sank.
  So instead of being split apart, it is a time to come together as a 
community and to support those who have been so tragically impacted.
  I have some leadership responsibility on the commerce committee, 
which has jurisdiction over maritime matters. It is my intention to see 
that there is a thorough and honest investigation to try to find 
answers for the families and to find answers so that we can prevent a 
tragedy such as this from happening again. That is where we should be 
focused.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is hard to think of a time in recent 
memory when the number of threats facing our country were more diverse 
or more threatening than they are now--from ISIL to Russia, from China 
to the Taliban, from Iran to Al Qaeda. These threats are real, these 
threats are worrying, and these threats make the political games that 
Democrats continue to play with our men and women in uniform all the 
more hard to understand.
  Democrats have spent months upon months blocking funding for our 
troops. They have tried to hide behind a whirling kaleidoscope of 
excuses, moving from one to another as each is debunked, but with the 
setting of a top-line budget number last week, the final excuse is 
gone. What is the excuse now?
  It is time for the appropriations process to finally be allowed to 
move forward. That means it is time for the men and women who put 
everything on the line for us to finally receive the support they need 
to be safe. It is time for our troops to finally get the certainty they 
need to plan for training and operations.
  The Defense appropriations bill is half of all discretionary 
spending. The Defense appropriations bill contains no controversial 
policy riders--none. The Defense appropriations bill was supported in 
committee 27 to 3. Nearly every Democrat voted for it. Democrats even 
sent out press releases praising the bill. It is obvious why we should 
pass it now.
  President Obama's own Secretary of Defense just wrote an op-ed titled 
``U.S. Military Needs Budget Certainty in Uncertain Times'' in which he 
implored Congress to authorize long-term funding for the military.
  He said:

       In this uncertain security environment, the U.S. military 
     needs to be agile and dynamic. What it has now is a 
     straitjacket. At the Defense Department, we are forced to 
     make hasty reductions when choices should be considered 
     carefully and strategically.

  He concluded with this:

       I appeal to Congress to act on a long-term budget deal that 
     will let American troops and their families know we have the 
     commitment and resources to see them succeed, and send a 
     global message that the United States will continue to plan 
     and build for the finest fighting force the world has ever 
     known.

  So look, our colleagues across the aisle are just completely out of 
excuses. It is time to move the bill forward. Once we do, we have every 
intention of then moving on to other appropriations bills as well.

[[Page S7769]]

  Remember, our Members worked very hard on these bills. Nearly all of 
the appropriations measures passed committee with support from both 
parties. We obviously want to process all of them.
  If Democrats hadn't wasted literally months blocking every last one 
as part of some political game, we could have passed all 12 
appropriations bills a long time ago, but since they did, it has forced 
Congress up against a December 11 deadline of the Democrats' own 
creation. We are going to work within that deadline to get as much done 
as we possibly can. With bipartisan cooperation, we can get a lot more 
accomplished. With more political games, we can get a lot less done.

                          ____________________