[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 183 (Thursday, November 9, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7134-S7135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Protecting Our Students and Taxpayers Act
Mr. President, last week, I reintroduced the Protecting Our Students
and Taxpayers, or POST, Act. I was pleased to be joined by Senators
Reed, Blumenthal, Carper, Murphy, and Warren in the Senate and by
Representative Steve Cohen in the House.
Since 1992, Federal law has required for-profit schools to derive a
portion of revenue from non-Federal sources. This was meant to keep
for-profit schools, which in general rely much more heavily on Federal
dollars than traditional schools, from being completely dependent on
Federal taxpayers to keep their doors open.
Originally, these schools had to receive at least 15 percent of their
revenue from non-Federal sources. In 1998, the threshold was lowered to
only 10 percent, creating today's so-called 90/10 rule. Think about
that. Mr. President, $9 out of every $10 these schools take in can come
from U.S. taxpayers. But it gets worse.
Only Department of Education Federal student aid dollars are counted
as Federal funds. A loophole in the law excludes billions in Department
of Veterans Affairs GI bill education benefits and Department of
Defense Tuition Assistance, (TA), funds from being counted as Federal
revenue. It means, by recruiting veterans and servicemembers, for-
profit colleges can actually receive more than 90 percent of their
revenue from Federal funds and still comply with the law. This powerful
incentive makes our men and women in uniform targets for predatory for-
profit colleges.
I have told these stories before, but I think they bear repeating. I
have told the story of two former military recruiters at a for-profit
college in Illinois. They were told their job was above all to put
``butts in classes,'' that they should dig deep into the personal lives
of their recruits to find their ``pain point.'' If a prospective
student was out of work, recruiters were encouraged to say things like,
``How do you think your wife feels about being married to someone
unemployed?''
Entrance requirements were low--it didn't matter how long a student
stayed as long as it was long enough for the school to receive the GI
bill dollars.
There is Paul Fajardo, a marine veteran who served in Afghanistan. He
used his GI bill benefits to enroll at the now-defunct Corinthian
Colleges and had to live out of his car when his school lost its
eligibility to receive GI bill benefits. He told the LA Times that
Corinthian recruited him and other veterans because ``they knew it was
a guaranteed paycheck.''
There is James Long, who suffered a brain injury when an artillery
shell hit his Humvee in Iraq. He used military benefits to enroll at
Ashford University after being heavily recruited. He told Bloomberg
News that he knows he is enrolled at Ashford, but can't remember what
courses he is enrolled in.
These veterans were nothing more than ATMs for these for-profit
colleges intent on pocketing their hard-earned education benefits.
And in 2016, for-profit colleges pocketed 34 percent of all GI bill
benefits--$1.7 billion--and 44 percent of all Department of Defense
Tuition Assistance funds--$220 million. Mr. President, $2 billion that
these for-profit colleges were able to count as non-Federal revenue.
Non-Federal?
The last time I checked, the Department of Veterans Affairs was part
of the Federal Government, and the money it spends--whether on
veterans' healthcare or housing or education--comes from U.S.
taxpayers.
When asked in writing during his confirmation process whether GI bill
funds are Federal funds, VA Secretary David Shulkin answered simply,
``Yes.''
And the last time I checked, the Department of Defense was part of
the
[[Page S7135]]
Federal Government, and the money it spends--whether on planes or bombs
or servicemembers' education--comes from U.S. taxpayers.
When I asked Secretary Mattis if Department of Defense Tuition
Assistance funds are indeed Federal funds, he responded, ``Yes . . .
these benefits are Federal funds.'' Seems like commonsense. Yet the law
doesn't see it that way.
That is why my colleagues and I have introduced the POST Act. Our
bill will close this ridiculous loophole. It will count all Federal
education benefits as Federal revenue and take the targets off the
backs of veterans and servicemembers. The bill also reduces the Federal
revenue limit to the original 85 percent.
Our legislation is supported by, among others, Student Veterans of
America, the Military Officers Association of America, Paralyzed
Veterans of America, and the National Association for College Admission
Counseling.
Last year, in response to a request from Senator Carper and me, the
Department of Education publicly released Federal revenue data for the
first time that included VA and DOD benefits. The data showed that 186
for-profit institutions received more than 90 percent of their revenue
when these additional Federal education benefits were included. Mr.
President, 563 institutions received more than 85 percent of their
revenue from Federal taxpayers when all Federal sources were included.
I was disappointed that when the Department released its 90/10
calculations this year, Secretary DeVos did not continue the practice
of releasing calculations that included VA and DOD funds, though maybe
that shouldn't be surprising. After all, unlike Secretaries Shulkin and
Mattis, Secretary DeVos has refused, when asked, to acknowledge the
obvious--that VA and DOD education funds are indeed Federal funds or
support closing the loophole.
But I am confident that the American people will see the current 90/
10 rule for what it is--a loophole that makes no sense and that puts
those who have served our country at risk.
This week, on the eve of Veterans Day, I will stand with my friend--
Senator Carper of Delaware--as he reintroduces the Military and
Veterans Education Protection Act. This bill also closes the 90/10
loophole, but leaves the Federal revenue limit at 90 percent. It is a
step in the right direction, and that is why I support it.
I hope our colleagues will consider supporting one or both of these
commonsense proposals.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield back all time on this side and
reserve one minute for Senator Carper.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on this nominee, I
wish to implore my colleagues to take one last moment to think about
this decision before us. I ask them to recall the words that I said
just a bit earlier this morning from the hymn that Martha and I heard
at church, not far from my home in Wilmington, DE, one Sunday on a
beautiful spring morning. It is a song, a hymn that we all know:
For the beauty of the Earth,
For the glory of the skies,
For the love which from our birth
Over and around us lies,
Lord of all, to Thee we raise
This our hymn of grateful praise.
That powerful message reminds me of the incredible responsibility we
have in this body to serve and protect the people who sent us here. We
must serve as stewards, also, of this planet, which has been entrusted
to us and to care for all the most vulnerable among us.
For me, that is not just my responsibility as a parent or as an
official elected to serve the people of my State for all these years.
It is a moral imperative and a sacred obligation, and there is no more
basic human need than having clean air to breathe.
I implore my colleagues. We have seen Mr. Wehrum's extreme agenda at
the EPA once before. It would be the height of irresponsibility and a
shirking of our moral obligation to confirm him today. I implore you to
join me in voting no on Bill Wehrum.
Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Wehrum
nomination?
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 268 Ex.]
YEAS--49
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--47
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Menendez
Paul
Roberts
Tester
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President.