[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19143-19153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2009--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  In the absence of anyone seeking recognition, time will be charged 
equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                  Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, later on this afternoon, we are going to 
be voting on a very simple and straightforward piece of legislation 
called the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act. This legislation is 
cosponsored by Majority Leader Reid, Senators Leahy, Schumer, Sherrod 
Brown, Whitehouse, Stabenow, Begich, Casey, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and 
Menendez.
  What this legislation would do is, at a time when, for the second 
consecutive year, seniors and disabled veterans have received no cost-
of-living adjustment, or COLA, on their Social Security, this 
legislation would provide the equivalent of a 2-percent increase by 
providing them with a one-time $250 check.
  In addition to the Senate cosponsors, this legislation is supported 
by President Obama, and I appreciate that. It is also supported, for 
all the right reasons, by virtually every senior organization in the 
country and every veterans organization, because this benefits not just 
seniors, many of whom are struggling hard to pay their bills, when 
their health care costs and prescription drug costs are rising, but it 
also impacts disabled veterans.
  Also supporting this is AARP, the largest senior organization in 
America; the American Legion, the largest veterans organization in 
America; VFW; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare; Disabled American Veterans; The Alliance for Retired 
Americans; The National Association of Retired Federal Employees; The 
Vietnam Veterans of America; and many other veterans and senior 
organizations.
  Just this morning, earlier today, 253 members of the House, including 
26 Republicans, voted to provide the same $250 COLA included in the 
bill that we are going to be voting on within a short time. So it won 
overwhelmingly in the House. In the House, they put it on the 
suspension calendar and it needed a two-thirds vote, but they didn't 
quite get that. I am confident that if we can come together here and 
get the 60 votes that we need, the House will reconsider the measure 
and pass it with a strong majority over there.
  In the state of Vermont--and I think all over this country--seniors 
are wondering as to why they are not getting a COLA this year when they 
are experiencing significant increases in their expenses. And the 
reason they are not getting their COLA is that, in my view, we have a 
very flawed methodology in terms of how we determine COLAs for Social 
Security. What the Department of Labor now does is kind of combine all 
of the purchasing needs of all Americans--people who are 2 years old, 
kids who are 16 years old, and people who are 96 years of age. The flaw 
there is that while laptop computers, and iPads, and other 
communications technology may in fact have gone down, lowering the cost 
of inflation, the needs of seniors and what they spend money on have 
not gone down.
  Most seniors spend their disposable income on health-related costs--
visits to doctors, health care, prescription drugs. Those have in fact 
gone up. So it is unfair for seniors when all of the Americans' 
purchasing habits are combined, because I think what is not fairly 
appreciated is what they are spending money on.
  To give you one example, the New York Times reported last year that 
2009 marked the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 
1992, with the prices of brandname prescription drugs going up by about 
9 percent. Seniors spend a lot of money, not on flat-screen TVs or 
iPads or computers but in fact on prescription drugs.
  According to the AARP's Public Policy Institute, the average price of 
brandname prescriptions most widely used by Medicare beneficiaries rose 
by 8.3 percent from March 2009 to March of 2010.
  Since 2000, Medicare Part B premiums have more than doubled, and 
deductibles have increased by 55 percent.
  Seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans have seen 
their premiums increase by 50 percent between 2006 and 2010, including 
an 11-percent increase between 2009 and 2010.
  In other words, the seniors who are calling my office, and I suspect 
your offices, and offices all over this country, are saying: Excuse me, 
our expenses are going up and we need some help.
  This is especially true for the millions of seniors and disabled 
veterans who are living on limited incomes. They are in trouble. 
Furthermore, what I would say is that, in the midst of this great 
debate we are having now on how we go forward in terms of taxes, there 
are a lot of seniors out there wondering how we can provide hundreds of 
billions of dollars in tax breaks for the top 2 percent, yet we cannot 
provide a $250 check to a disabled veteran or a senior on Social 
Security.
  This is a very simple piece of legislation. The House has already 
passed it with a strong majority. I hope very much we can pass it this 
afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five and one-half minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time. 
I see no Republicans on the floor now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, our first responders are genuine heroes. 
On a routine basis, they walk into burning buildings, confront 
criminals, and put their lives on the line to protect our

[[Page 19144]]

families and communities. These dedicated workers are on the front 
lines every day, and they have invaluable skills and knowledge about 
how to best protect the public and stay safe on the job.
  Unfortunately, under current law, many of our first responders have 
no voice in the decisions that affect their own lives and livelihoods. 
Their workplace input is disregarded because they are denied the same 
basic rights that other American workers enjoy. Currently, private 
sector employees are covered by the National Labor Relations Act and 
have the right to form a union if they choose, but we leave it up to 
States to determine whether police and firefighters have the right to 
form a union. Over half of the States allow collective bargaining, but 
almost 300,000 police officers and 141,000 fire fighters nationwide are 
legally forbidden from exercising their basic, fundamental right to 
collective bargaining. That is an injustice to our police and 
firefighters and is inconsistent with American values. That is why I 
support the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation Act, which 
would extend this basic right to thousands of brave public servants. 
This bill has the support of a broad bipartisan coalition of Senators.
  The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act protects the 
fundamental rights of our first responders by requiring States to 
provide them with four basic protections: The right to form and join a 
union; the right to sit down at the table and talk; the right to sign 
an enforceable contract if both parties agree; and the right to go to a 
neutral third party when there are disputes.
  The benefits of this bill go to both our first responders and the 
communities they serve. We know that collective bargaining helps 
improve safety for workers. The firefighter fatality rate in States 
without collective bargaining is about 52 percent higher than in States 
that honor these rights. Collective bargaining relations have also 
helped to address worker fatigue, on-the-job errors, employee fitness, 
and safety hazards like asbestos. Equally important in these times of 
State fiscal crisis, there are countless examples across the country of 
union firefighters and police officers voting to forego scheduled 
salary increases, defer pension payments, pay increased benefit 
premiums, or reduce overtime hours in order to help States cut costs 
and avoid layoffs.
  While guaranteeing the fundamental right to organize, the act 
preserves maximum flexibility for States and localities to shape their 
own laws. The 26 States that already allow collective bargaining will 
not have to change their laws at all. Other States will have to ensure 
the four basic protections, but everything else about how to craft 
their labor laws is left entirely to the States' discretion.
  It is long past time to ensure that our dedicated public safety 
officers have the same basic rights that private-sector workers across 
the country already enjoy. This is a matter of fundamental fairness, 
and an urgent matter of public safety. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this important bipartisan bill.
  Mr. President, earlier today my colleague from Wyoming was on the 
Senate floor and made some statements about this bill--my ranking 
member, Senator Enzi. I just want to respond to a couple of those.
  My friend from Wyoming said the bill didn't go through the HELP 
Committee during this Congress, and we weren't given a right to 
consider the bill in the appropriate venue. Well, Senator Gregg, on the 
Republican side, has introduced this bill for the last five Congresses. 
The HELP Committee has marked up this bill and approved it twice, and a 
majority of the Senate has twice voted to consider the bill. So we have 
been debating this bill for years. Simply because it didn't go through 
the committee this time doesn't mean it didn't go through the committee 
many times before, which it did.
  Secondly, the bill does not impose an unfunded mandate on our States. 
That was mentioned. It does not require cities and States to spend 
money, only to engage in a dialogue. It does not allow strikes, and it 
does not impose arbitration or require particular terms. These are 
indeed left up to the States.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think the Senator is using my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is still in his own time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All right. I was wrong, I am pleased to say.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the American people are united in their 
desire to provide generously for the new generation of veterans, 
including those who have served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We 
want these veterans to have every opportunity to reintegrate 
successfully into civilian life, to find good jobs, and to build solid 
careers. To that end, the Federal Government has provided opportunities 
for these veterans to pursue advancement through higher education. That 
is why we passed the post-9/11 G.I. bill on June 30, 2008, and it is 
why we expanded existing education programs through the Department of 
Defense--DOD.
  The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which I 
chair, has been conducting an in-depth inquiry into the for-profit 
sector of higher education. Most recently, we have taken a look at the 
unprecedented surge of dollars from military educational benefits 
programs to for-profits. I am here today to have printed in the Record 
a new report that committee staff has prepared titled, ``Benefitting 
Whom? For-Profit Education Companies and the Growth of Military 
Educational Benefits.'' This report documents that between 2006 and 
2010, combined Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense 
education benefits received just by 20 for-profit education companies 
increased from $66.6 million to $521.2 million, an increase of 683 
percent.
  Mr. President, I will have more to say about the report in the 
upcoming days.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a report and an appendix 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act: Enacted in 
     June 2008, the Post-9/11 GI Bill has been in effect for only 
     one year. Even a look at this brief window illustrates that 
     students eligible for these benefits are being aggressively 
     pursued by for-profit schools. The 30 for-profit schools that 
     received document requests reported 23,766 students receiving 
     military benefits of any type in 2006, but 109,167 students 
     receiving benefits in 2009, and 100,702 students through 
     approximately just the first half of 2010.
       Rapidly Increasing Veterans' Benefits: Of 20 for-profit 
     schools that provided usable data to the HELP Committee, 
     between 2006 and 2010, the combined VA and DoD total military 
     educational benefits increased from $66.6 million to a 
     projected $521.2 million in 2010, an increase of 683 percent. 
     For each year analyzed, growth in revenue from military 
     educational benefits was much higher than overall revenue 
     growth, and the growth accelerated dramatically after the 
     Post-9/11 GI Bill was enacted. Between fiscal year 2006 and 
     2007, overall revenue increased 8.4 percent while military 
     educational benefit related revenue increased 23.8 percent. 
     Between 2009 and 2010, while overall revenue increased a 
     healthy 26.1 percent, military revenue increased 211 percent. 
     DoD programs are also increasing rapidly.
       Eighteen companies that provided documents to the HELP 
     Committee differentiated revenues from the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense for the entire 
     period 2006 through 2010. In that period, Department of 
     Defense educational benefits paid to these schools increased 
     from $40 million in 2006 to an expected $175.1 million in 
     2010, a 337.4 percent increase. Department of Veterans 
     Affairs educational benefits paid to these schools increased 
     more than tenfold from $26.3 million in 2006 to an expected 
     $285.8 million in 2010, including a five-fold increase from 
     $55.3 million to $285.8 million just between 2009 and 2010. 
     Increases in both programs occur across schools and are not 
     dependent on the size of the school or whether it offers 
     classroom-based programs or operates primarily online. For 
     one primarily online school, DoD revenues increased more than 
     seven-fold from $220,528 in 2006 to $1.64 million in 2010. 
     For a smaller privately owned school, they increased ten-fold 
     from $7,300 in 2006 to $75,300 in 2010. At a school with a 
     long history of serving active duty servicemembers, DoD 
     revenues increased from $26.44 million in 2006

[[Page 19145]]

     to an expected $98.14 million in 2010. When looking at VA 
     benefits, a primarily online school specializing in graduate 
     programs saw an increase from $375,108 in 2006 to an expected 
     $12.35 million in 2010. At a smaller privately owned school, 
     VA benefits increased from $321,450 in 2006 to a forecasted 
     $8 million for 2010.
       Company 1: To better understand the dramatic impact that 
     changes to the DoD and VA programs have had on the amount of 
     funding flowing to for-profit schools, it is helpful to look 
     at three individual education companies. Company 1 operates a 
     for-profit school that is not publicly traded. It has a 
     strong physical presence near military installations, with a 
     history of enrolling students who are servicemembers or 
     veterans. The school actively recruits servicemembers and 
     veterans, and has military-oriented marketing on its website, 
     noting that it offers classes on, near, and around military 
     installations as well as online. It encourages active-duty 
     servicemembers to utilize the Top-Up program to spend Post-9/
     11 GI Bill benefits in addition to Tuition Assistance in 
     order to cover tuition. In 2006, the school had 1,338 
     military students. With the availability of Post-9/11 GI Bill 
     benefits and the overall growth in enrollment, some growth in 
     both the numbers of students attending the schools and the 
     amount of military benefit dollars going to the schools would 
     be expected. In fact, steady growth is evident from 2006 
     through 2009, with military funding increasing from $3 
     million in 2006 to $3.4 million in 2009 and the number of 
     eligible students varying from 1,100 to 1,400. However, for 
     2010 the growth is dramatic, with the school enrolling 5,223 
     eligible military students and receiving $23 million in 
     military benefits. At the same time, according to the 
     Committee's analysis of all the students enrolling in the 
     school's associate's degree programs between August 1, 2008 
     and July 31, 2009, 47 percent had dropped out by mid-2010, as 
     had 52 percent of students enrolled in the school's 
     bachelor's degree program. Students who dropped out of these 
     programs within the first year did so in an average of 180 
     days, during which they would likely have paid about $6,550 
     in tuition. The school also has an overall repayment rate of 
     just 33 percent, while one campus has a repayment rate of 
     just 8 percent. Although military students may fare somewhat 
     better than the overall student population in completing the 
     programs, the fact that such a significant portion of 
     military educational benefits are going to a for-profit 
     school with high tuition, in combination with problematic 
     outcomes and poor repayment rates, raises serious questions 
     about whether the school might be shortchanging veterans.
       Company 2: A second company, this one publicly traded, 
     similarly saw a significant increase of military benefits in 
     2009 and 2010. Unfortunately, it is impossible to examine the 
     increase because the company never tracked the amount of 
     military educational benefits received prior to 2009, and has 
     failed to provide a breakdown of how much of the military 
     educational benefits they receive is from the DoD and how 
     much is from VA. Similarly, the company failed to provide the 
     HELP Committee with the number of students receiving military 
     benefits for any year except 2009, when they stated that they 
     enrolled 2,764 students receiving military benefits. This 
     company, which received $1.02 billion in federal financial 
     aid dollars in 2009, generated $488.8 million in profits, and 
     spent $120,000 on lobbying in the first three quarters of 
     2010, has not produced basic information about company 
     revenues or its student body requested by the HELP Committee. 
     Supplementing the $1.02 billion in revenues from federal 
     financial aid dollars the company received in 2009, it is on 
     pace to receive $101.4 million in federal military 
     educational benefits in 2010, the highest dollar figure of 
     any for-profit school. In the first year of Post-9/11 GI Bill 
     eligibility (August 2009-July 2010), the company's campuses 
     received at least $79.2 million in benefits just from the 
     Post-9/11 program for 6,677 students, at an average cost of 
     $11,855 per student. Like Company 1 discussed above, the 
     overall student outcomes for this particular school were 
     poor. For students entering between summer 2008 and summer 
     2009, 53.1 percent of associate's degree students and 44.5 
     percent of bachelor's degree students had dropped out by the 
     summer of 2010, and had dropped out within a median of 90 
     days, or just under 3 months. The company has a loan 
     repayment rate of 31 percent with two campuses with repayment 
     rates of only 4%, and has 11 campuses with 3-year default 
     rates over 25 percent. Meanwhile, the company's revenues 
     provided a 37.1 percent profit margin for 2009. Again, these 
     figures raise a troubling question: Is this school putting 
     profit ahead of providing our veterans with a quality 
     education that will lead to a good job?
       Company 3: A second publicly traded company also helps to 
     illustrate the dramatic and recent nature of the increases in 
     military educational benefits going to for-profit schools, as 
     well as the cost differentials among the schools. Company 3 
     received Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for 6,211 students 
     totaling $47.9 million. Company 2 received benefits for a 
     comparable 6,677 students, but received $79.2 million in VA 
     benefits. While Company 3 received an average of $7,710 per 
     student, Company 2 with similar programs and locations, 
     received an average of $11,855 per student! Company 3 
     provided clear data to the Committee showing that in 2006, 
     the school received benefits from three students under the 
     DoD Tuition Assistance program and 207 students through VA 
     programs, for combined military educational revenues of $2.69 
     million. These numbers remained relatively level through 
     2009, with six students receiving DoD Tuition Assistance and 
     148 receiving VA benefits for a total of $1.44 million in 
     revenues. In 2010, however, the same school enrolled 5,754 
     veteran students, and received veterans' benefits totaling 
     $57.99 million. Enrollment of active-duty students receiving 
     tuition assistance also soared from six students to 148 
     students receiving $2.43 million in benefits, a significant 
     one year increase on its own. However, for students entering 
     in 2008-2009, 56.4 percent of all bachelor's students and 
     54.3 percent of all associate's students had left Company 3's 
     schools within one year of enrolling, with the median student 
     staying 112 days or just under four months. The repayment 
     rate for the company's student body as a whole is 35 percent. 
     Looking at individual schools' rapid acceleration in revenues 
     from both VA and DoD military educational benefits makes 
     clear that there is a concerted effort to attract students 
     eligible for military benefits to the schools. It 
     demonstrates that the increase in funds going to the schools 
     has occurred very quickly and is likely to continue and 
     possibly to escalate in the absence of increased oversight by 
     Congress or the relevant agencies. Given the troubling short-
     term outcomes of many of the for-profit schools examined by 
     the Committee, and the unknown, but potentially troubling 
     prospects for students completing these programs, very 
     serious questions exist as to whether our servicemembers and 
     veterans are receiving the education intended by Congress.
       With high tuition rates, and with half, or close to half of 
     the general student population dropping out in the first 
     year, it is incumbent on the Congress and the agencies to do 
     more to ensure that the servicemembers and veterans attending 
     for-profit schools are in fact getting the promised 
     educational benefits in exchange for this significant federal 
     investment.

                                       MILITARY EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS RECEIVED BY 30 FOR-PROFIT EDUCATION COMPANIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Department of
                    Company                                  Fiscal year             Department of Defense     Veterans Affairs        Total military
                                                                                       education benefits     education benefits     education benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alta Colleges, Inc.............................  2006..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2007..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2008..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2009..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2010..............................                  $0.00         $12,794,916.35         $12,794,916.35
                                                 2010 Projected....................                  $0.00         $15,353,899.62         $15,353,899.62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Career College........................  2006..............................                  $0.00              $1,930.00              $1,930.00
                                                 2007..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2008..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2009..............................                  $0.00            $186,117.42            $186,117.42
                                                 2010..............................                  $0.00            $662,251.00            $662,251.00
                                                 2010 Projected....................                  $0.00          $1,135,287.43          $1,135,287.43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Public Education, Inc.................  2006..............................         $26,438,624.99          $2,241,622.12         $28,680,247.11
                                                 2007..............................         $42,666,884.40          $3,293,956.56         $45,960,840.96
                                                 2008..............................         $65,338,857.08          $4,807,090.49         $70,145,947.58
                                                 2009..............................         $85,377,635.60          $7,194,847.69         $92,572,483.29
                                                 2010..............................         $49,070,768.25          $7,070,234.33         $56,141,002.58
                                                 2010 Projected....................         $98,141,536.50         $14,140,468.66        $112,282,005.16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem Education Group.........................  2006..............................                  $0.00             $27,500.21             $27,500.21
                                                 2007..............................                  $0.00             $26,272.65             $26,272.65
                                                 2008..............................                  $0.00             $22,908.17             $22,908.17

[[Page 19146]]

 
                                                 2009..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2010..............................                  $0.00            $588,476.04            $588,476.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc..............................  2006..............................         $34,429,054.89          $4,305,292.85         $38,734,347.74
                                                 2007..............................         $34,600,039.42          $5,309,996.10         $39,910,035.52
                                                 2008..............................         $32,581,190.54          $6,782,860.27         $39,364,050.81
                                                 2009..............................         $39,123,465.11         $10,462,349.95         $49,585,815.06
                                                 2010..............................                            NO DATA PROVIDED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc.*...................  2006..............................                  $0.00             $12,366.45             $12,366.45
                                                 2007..............................                  $0.00             $30,229.09             $30,229.09
                                                 2008..............................            $640,590.82             $91,495.61            $732,086.43
                                                 2009..............................          $1,926,211.44          $2,225,403.61          $4,151,615.05
                                                 2010..............................         $20,593,019.48          $6,139,962.76         $26,732,982.24
                                                 2010 Projected....................         $41,186,038.96         $12,279,925.52         $53,465,964.48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capella Education Co...........................  2006..............................             $56,335.00            $375,108.11            $431,443.11
                                                 2007..............................             $58,459.40            $318,253.00            $376,712.40
                                                 2008..............................            $161,197.00            $381,233.53            $542,430.53
                                                 2009..............................            $304,482.05          $2,484,172.59          $2,788,654.64
                                                 2010..............................            $174,333.49          $6,173,139.32          $6,347,472.81
                                                 2010 Projected....................            $348,666.98         $12,346,278.64         $12,694,945.62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp..........................  2006..............................          $7,913,267.48         $15,964,584.60         $23,877,852.08
                                                 2007..............................          $7,532,830.67         $13,917,067.94         $21,449,898.61
                                                 2008..............................          $7,190,440.67         $15,474,386.19         $22,664,826.86
                                                 2009..............................         $10,589,096.30         $27,954,755.10         $38,543,851.40
                                                 2010..............................          $6,710,145.55         $39,433,890.52         $46,144,036.07
                                                 2010 Projected....................         $13,420,291.10         $78,867,781.04         $92,288,072.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor University..........................  2006..............................                             DID NOT EXIST
                                                 2007..............................                             DID NOT EXIST
                                                 2008..............................                             DID NOT EXIST
                                                 2009..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2010..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concorde Career Colleges, Inc.*................  2006..............................             $21,137.33             $97,271.44            $118,408.77
                                                 2007..............................             $17,973.80            $176,478.65            $194,452.45
                                                 2008..............................             $86,697.86            $244,802.49            $331,500.35
                                                 2009..............................            $185,118.31          $1,002,726.23          $1,187,844.54
                                                 2010..............................            $357,937.20          $1,697,880.32          $2,055,817.52
                                                 2010 Projected....................            $715,874.40          $3,395,760.64          $4,111,635.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.......................  2006..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                         $39,388.00
                                                 2007..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                         $31,133.00
                                                 2008..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                         $64,761.56
                                                 2009..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                         -$4,927.56
                                                 2010..............................            $485,045.00         $15,277,378.79         $15,762,423.79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry, Inc.....................................  2006..............................             $21,648.55          $2,667,497.87          $2,689,146.42
                                                 2007..............................             $42,539.74          $2,161,221.01          $2,203,760.75
                                                 2008..............................             $27,035.46          $2,119,896.25          $2,146,931.71
                                                 2009..............................             $59,402.67          $1,383,042.43          $1,442,445.10
                                                 2010..............................          $2,428,761.15         $55,557,510.47         $57,986,271.62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drake College of Business......................  2006..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2007..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2008..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2009..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2010..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECPI Colleges, Inc.............................  2006..............................          $1,730,565.36          $1,250,382.30          $2,980,947.66
                                                 2007..............................          $2,103,251.46          $1,511,269.18          $3,614,520.64
                                                 2008..............................          $1,092,668.22          $1,243,855.32          $2,336,523.54
                                                 2009..............................          $1,641,698.50          $1,793,502.79          $3,435,201.29
                                                 2010..............................          $3,258,238.06         $19,850,057.30         $23,108,295.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education America, Inc.........................  2006..............................                  $0.00             $59,859.38             $59,859.38
                                                 2007..............................                  $0.00            $113,752.59            $113,752.59
                                                 2008..............................             $44,524.00             $56,082.21            $100,606.21
                                                 2009..............................             $18,183.74             $22,690.19             $40,873.93
                                                 2010..............................            $340,611.65          $2,562,636.10          $2,903,247.75
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corp......................  2006..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                        $217,571.77
                                                 2007..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                        $394,176.02
                                                 2008..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                        $676,842.99
                                                 2009..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                      $2,039,710.81
                                                 2010..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                     $52,469,077.71
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon Education, Inc....................  2006..............................            $220,528.58                  $0.00            $220,528.58
                                                 2007..............................            $470,346.33                  $0.00            $470,346.33
                                                 2008..............................            $738,209.25                  $0.00            $738,209.25
                                                 2009..............................          $1,637,330.33                  $0.00          $1,637,330.33
                                                 2010..............................                            NO DATA PROVIDED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henley-Putnam University.......................  2006..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2007..............................             $21,279.00             $54,573.00             $75,852.00
                                                 2008..............................            $172,581.00            $347,384.00            $519,965.00
                                                 2009..............................            $295,592.00            $853,003.00          $1,148,595.00
                                                 2010..............................                            NO DATA PROVIDED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herzing Educational System.....................  2006..............................              $7,320.00                  $0.00              $7,320.00
                                                 2007..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2008..............................              $2,750.00            $268,649.33            $271,399.33
                                                 2009..............................             $32,676.00            $772,004.18            $804,680.18
                                                 2010..............................             $46,000.00            $871,401.97            $917,401.97
                                                 2010 Projected....................             $75,306.96          $1,426,578.94          $1,501,885.90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc..................  2006..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2007..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2008..............................                  $0.00                  $0.00                  $0.00
                                                 2009..............................                  $0.00         $20,852,677.99         $20,852,677.99
                                                 2010..............................                  $0.00         $50,696,494.57         $50,696,494.57
                                                 2010 Projected ...................                  $0.00        $101,392,989.14        $101,392,989.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Higher Education (Owned by Washington     2006..............................          $2,089,589.51            $498,798.23          $2,588,387.74
 Post Co.).

[[Page 19147]]

 
                                                 2007..............................          $2,369,904.04            $425,830.28          $2,795,734.32
                                                 2008..............................          $2,418,545.39            $404,151.80          $2,822,697.19
                                                 2009..............................          $5,972,872.54          $4,402,022.45         $10,374,894.99
                                                 2010..............................          $6,331,145.68         $18,124,289.68         $24,455,435.36
                                                 2010 Projected....................         $12,662,291.36         $36,248,579.36         $48,910,870.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keiser University..............................  2006..............................            $111,165.68            $321,450.19            $432,615.87
                                                 2007..............................             $86,536.96            $518,763.27            $605,300.23
                                                 2008..............................             $37,662.86            $803,384.53            $841,047.39
                                                 2009..............................            $105,582.62          $2,055,617.94          $2,161,200.56
                                                 2010..............................            $241,513.31          $4,000,701.62          $4,242,214.93
                                                 2010 Projected....................            $483,026.62          $8,001,403.24          $8,484,429.86
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laureate Education, Inc.+......................  2006..............................                            NO DATA PROVIDED
                                                 2007..............................                            NO DATA PROVIDED
                                                 2008..............................                            NO DATA PROVIDED
                                                 2009..............................                            NO DATA PROVIDED
                                                 2010..............................                            NO DATA PROVIDED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Educational Services Co................  2006..............................             $32,459.33            $228,605.96            $261,065.29
                                                 2007..............................             $76,337.52            $373,731.31            $450,068.83
                                                 2008..............................             $70,674.03            $348,491.30            $419,165.33
                                                 2009..............................            $178,680.11          $1,692,342.53          $1,871,022.64
                                                 2010..............................            $150,709.45          $4,308,982.78          $4,459,692.23
                                                 2010 Projected....................            $301,418.90          $8,617,965.56          $8,919,384.46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National American University Holdings, Inc.....  2006..............................          $1,509,102.41            $137,834.34          $1,646,936.75
                                                 2007..............................          $1,657,352.56             $52,521.02          $1,709,873.58
                                                 2008..............................          $1,574,078.54             $55,651.56          $1,629,730.10
                                                 2009..............................          $1,682,427.90             $69,326.60          $1,751,754.50
                                                 2010..............................          $1,586,327.84          $1,159,039.09          $2,745,366.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rasmussen, Inc.................................  2006..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                        $132,175.72
                                                 2007..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                        $166,960.14
                                                 2008..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                        $234,823.43
                                                 2009..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                        $444,169.05
                                                 2010..............................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                      $4,004,291.44
                                                 2010 Projected....................              NO BREAKOUT PROVIDED                      $5,339,055.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strayer Education, Inc.+.......................  2006..............................          $2,962,040.38       NO DATA PROVIDED          $2,962,040.38
                                                 2007..............................          $3,741,602.49       NO DATA PROVIDED          $3,741,602.49
                                                 2008..............................          $4,516,986.99       NO DATA PROVIDED          $4,516,986.99
                                                 2009..............................          $5,347,676.78          $5,385,138.68         $10,732,815.46
                                                 2010..............................          $3,335,773.12         $16,999,607.55         $20,335,380.67
                                                 2010 Projected....................          $6,671,546.24         $33,999,215.10         $40,670,761.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TUI University.................................  2006..............................                             DID NOT EXIST
                                                 2007..............................                             DID NOT EXIST
                                                 2008..............................         $16,609,992.55          $3,234,619.17         $19,844,611.72
                                                 2009..............................         $33,227,991.92          $5,868,491.67         $39,096,483.59
                                                 2010..............................         $38,595,867.15          $7,155,399.56         $45,751,266.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Technical Institute, Inc.............  2006..............................            $100,315.40          $1,492,759.54          $1,593,074.94
                                                 2007..............................            $160,044.19          $1,390,395.57          $1,550,439.76
                                                 2008..............................            $206,405.79          $1,403,107.49          $1,609,513.28
                                                 2009..............................            $209,842.94          $2,091,255.61          $2,301,098.55
                                                 2010..............................            $126,534.10         $10,701,869.77         $10,828,403.87
                                                 2010 Projected....................            $151,840.92         $12,842,243.72         $12,994,084.64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vatterott Educational Centers, Inc.*...........  2006..............................                  $0.00            $801,274.13            $801,274.13
                                                 2007..............................                  $0.00            $733,508.98            $733,508.98
                                                 2008..............................                  $0.00            $720,618.66            $720,618.66
                                                 2009..............................                  $0.00          $1,468,029.08          $1,468,029.08
                                                 2010..............................                  $0.00          $1,934,796.33          $1,934,796.33
                                                 2010 Projected....................                  $0.00          $3,869,592.66         $3,869,592.66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes VA vocational rehabilitation funds.
+Data combined with student cash payments.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                               DREAM ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few thoughts about the 
legislation that I understand we will be voting on--at least voting on 
cloture--later this afternoon, and that is the DREAM Act. One of the 
major themes of the recent election was an idea revolving around an 
idea set forth in the Declaration of Independence--the idea that is a 
bedrock principle of our country--and that is the government derives 
its just powers from the consent of the governed.
  Many Americans have believed for some time now that Washington has 
become disconnected from the people it serves. Indeed, a recent poll 
found that only one in five Americans believes the government is 
operating with the consent of the governed.
  Now, on the heels of a historic midterm election, the Democratic 
leadership in this lameduck session is, I believe, further eroding 
those bonds of trust by refusing to listen and moving an amnesty bill 
that violates a clear American view that border security should be 
first. The American people are correct in that. It is not negative, 
mean-spirited. The American people understand, and I think Congress is 
coming to understand also, that ending the lawlessness at our borders 
is the first thing that must be done, and at some point after that we 
can then wrestle with what to do about people here illegally or else we 
are surrendering to lawlessness.
  So our Democratic leaders have introduced now four versions of the 
DREAM Act in just the last 2 months--three in the last 2 or 3 days--a 
shell game that abuses the process. We have not had hearings on it in 7 
years. Meanwhile, the DREAM Act has been proposed as a bill for 
ambitious youth on a track to graduate from high school or college and 
join the military. But the truth is far different from that talking 
point.
  In reality, the DREAM Act would grant nearly unrestricted amnesty--a 
guaranteed path to citizenship--to millions of illegal aliens--adults 
and youth alike. They do not even need a high school diploma. They 
certainly do not need a college degree. And they do not need to join 
the military. In fact, the bill's eligibility provisions are so broad 
that even repeat criminal offenders would fall within its loose 
requirements and qualify for this masked amnesty.
  The public has pleaded with Congress time and again to secure the 
border,

[[Page 19148]]

but those pleas have been ignored by those who have been pushing this 
bill. Why aren't we seeing calls for that? Americans want us first to 
enforce the laws we have, but the bill will reward and encourage the 
violation of American laws. Americans want Congress to end the 
lawlessness, but this bill would have us surrender to it. It is a give-
up type of approach.
  Consider the DREAM Act's core features. It is not limited to children 
first. Illegal aliens as old as 30 or 35, depending on the bill, are 
eligible on the date of enactment, and they remain eligible to apply at 
any future age, as the registration window does not close. One does not 
need a high school diploma, a college degree, or military service. A 
person here illegally can receive indefinite legal status as long as 
they have a GED--the alternative to a high school diploma. They can 
receive that in a foreign language, and they can receive permanent 
legal status and a guaranteed path to citizenship as long as they then 
complete 2 years of college or trade school, but their status changes 
upon application after having a GED.
  My faithful staff has just discovered and made a copy of this Google 
page, and it had 273,000 hits. The title of it is ``Fake Diploma,'' and 
it has places on here that one could obtain a fake diploma, fake 
degree, fake diplomas. Or how about another one: fake diplomas, fake 
degrees, fake GEDs, high school diplomas. Buy a GED, high school 
diploma, college diploma, college transcript, college degrees or high 
school transcripts at Diploma Company, your online source. It goes on 
down there: Fake diploma, fake diploma, fast delivery, fake diploma, 
transcript, birth certificate.
  So this is not going to be easy to enforce. I would assure you we 
have insufficient personnel to go out and run down all these matters.
  One version of the DREAM Act offers illegal aliens instate tuition, 
for which many Americans are not eligible. All four versions that are 
now pending provide illegal aliens with Federal education benefits, 
such as work-study programs, Federal student loans, and access to 
public colleges. These are already funded. We would like to have more 
money for these loan programs. But it has to be spread out, and the 
budget is tight. So more illegal aliens would then be rewarded by these 
programs.
  The CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--has said the bill, over 
time, would add $5 billion to the national debt. But I believe the 
number is likely to be higher because CBO clearly failed to account for 
a number of major cost factors with the DREAM Act, including public 
education costs, chain migration, and fraud. Nor does the CBO take into 
account what history has proven--that passing amnesty will incentivize 
even more illegality and lawlessness at the border.
  I wish it weren't so, but experience teaches us that it is. If you 
are here illegally, and you have a young brother, a nephew, they can 
get into our country and get into a high school. They can't deny them 
if they are here illegally. So they can get a degree or GED, and they 
are put on a guaranteed path to citizenship. At the point that occurs, 
they can even make application for their family member to be given a 
priority--the one who was here illegally to begin with, who brought 
them here. That is the reality under our immigration procedure.
  In addition, the CBO assumes a large portion of these individuals 
will obtain jobs, but there is no job surplus today. Indeed, there is a 
surplus of labor that can't find employment. So this score does not 
count unemployed American citizens who can't get jobs because of 
additional competition. Estimates conservatively say between 1.3 and 
2.1 million illegal aliens will be immediately eligible for the DREAM 
Act's amnesty. But that number will grow significantly, as the bill has 
no cap or sunset. Moreover, those who do obtain legal status can do the 
same for their relatives, as I indicated.
  Many with criminal records will also be eligible for the DREAM Act's 
amnesty. They simply must have less than three misdemeanor violations--
less than three. Those potentially eligible would include drunk 
drivers, gang members, even those who have committed certain sexual 
offenses. Many of those are misdemeanors. And the most recent version 
of the bill also gives the Secretary of Homeland Security broad 
authority to wave ineligibility for even the most severe criminal 
offenders and those who pose even a threat to national security.
  Mr. President, I was a Federal prosecutor and State attorney general. 
I know for a fact that every day, for a host of reasons--maybe a 
witness didn't show up, maybe the caseload is overwhelming--prosecutors 
allow people to plead to misdemeanors when the offense they have 
actually committed is a felony. So allowing a person to have three 
misdemeanors is a serious loophole and does not suggest that the 
criminal activity they have been participating in is insignificant or 
nonconsequential.
  Surprisingly, those who commit document fraud or who lie to 
immigration authorities are eligible for the amnesty as well. This is 
particularly troubling as it contains a potential loophole for high-
risk individuals to be placed on a pathway to citizenship. One of the 
warning signs missed prior to 9/11 was the fraudulent visa applications 
submitted by the 9/11 hijackers.
  The DREAM Act even contains a safe harbor provision that would 
prevent many applicants from being removed as long as their application 
is pending, even if they have a serious criminal record. This provision 
would dramatically hinder our Federal authorities and will undoubtedly 
unleash a torrent of costly litigation.
  One of the things that has been happening too much is what we call 
catch-and-release. People are apprehended and placed in jail and then 
they are released--illegal aliens--and told to report back to the court 
for a final disposition of their case. Not surprisingly, over 90 
percent--I think 94 percent--don't show up. So when we allow these 
processes to be delayed significantly, it reduces the ability of the 
law enforcement officials to be able to process cases, and it allows 
many to be released on bail, whereupon they abscond and do not return.
  Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Twelve seconds. I thank the Chair.
  So, Mr. President, this country needs to end the lawlessness, and 
after that is done--and it can be done shortly--the American people 
want us to wrestle with how to handle people who have entered our 
country illegally. The reverse is not true.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. They do not want us providing amnesty before the border 
is secure.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I see the minority leader, Senator 
McConnell, is on the floor. I will make a unanimous consent request, 
but I want to make certain he has his opportunity to speak.
  So I would ask unanimous consent that after Senator McConnell has 
completed his remarks, I be given 10 minutes to speak, and an equal 
amount of time offered to the Republican side of the aisle, before the 
first rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Did the Senator say 10 minutes?
  Mr. DURBIN. Ten minutes each side, and I would offer the same amount 
to your side.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would say to my friend from Illinois, we don't need 
10 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Then I ask for 10 minutes to speak after the Senator has 
completed his remarks.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is my friend from Illinois asking a consent?
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent after Senator McConnell completes 
his remarks that I have 10 minutes to speak, and I believe we will be 
able to accommodate everyone's schedule.

[[Page 19149]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am just going to proceed for a couple 
minutes on my leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                    DEMOCRATIC MISPLACED PRIORITIES

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is perfectly clear our friends on 
the other side are more interested in pleasing special interest groups 
than in addressing our Nation's job crisis. Once again, they are 
insisting the Senate spend its last remaining days before the end of 
the session voting on a liberal grab bag of proposals that are designed 
to fail. They don't even intend to pass these items. They just want to 
show they care enough to hold these show votes, which raises a 
question: Are we here to perform or are we here to legislate?
  Our friends have focused on partisan votes for 4 years now. 
Meanwhile, millions of Americans have lost jobs and homes and in many 
cases hope. The Nation's debt has skyrocketed through misguided 
programs Americans did not want. It is time to put them aside and 
actually accomplish something the American people support. It is time 
to give back the legislative process to the people who sent us here.
  That means preventing a tax hike that is about to slam every working 
American. It means doing something to address the jobs crisis, to give 
families and small businesses the tools they need to revive this 
economy and get people back to work. It is time to end the posturing 
and to work together to accomplish something, not for the liberal base, 
for the vast middle of America that needs us.
  The White House has signaled its concern over the economy, that its 
policies are not helping, and that it is time to work with Republicans 
on forging a new path. We have reached a bipartisan agreement. It is 
time Democrats in Congress reach a similar conclusion and enable us to 
act for the good of the whole country. Americans are counting on us. 
They have waited long enough.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Illinois.


                             The DREAM Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the minority for giving me this 
opportunity to speak. Later in this queue of votes there will be a vote 
on an issue known as the DREAM Act. I introduced this bill 10 years 
ago. What I am attempting to do in this bill is to try to resolve an 
item of great injustice in America.
  All across this country are young boys and girls, young men and women 
who came to this country with their parents when they were only 
children, who were brought in by parents who were here in illegal 
status. They could have been parents who came here on a student visa 
and stayed beyond when they were supposed to. But the children have 
been raised in America. They have grown up in this country.
  I learned of this issue in Chicago when a young Korean-American 
mother called and said: My daughter, I brought her here when she was 2 
years old and I never filed any paperwork. She just completed high 
school. She has been accepted at Juilliard School of Music. She is an 
accomplished pianist. What should I do?
  When I contacted our immigration authorities, they said: Send her 
back to Korea. She is not an American citizen. She has no status in 
this country.
  Multiply that story many times over and you will know why I 
introduced the DREAM Act. If you or I were driving down the highway and 
speeding, pulled over by a policeman and given a ticket, we would 
understand it. But if they also gave a ticket to your young daughter in 
the backseat, you would say: That is not fair. She wasn't driving. 
These children were not driving when their parents came to America, but 
they have been trying to drive through the obstacles that are here for 
all new immigrants into this country, and they have achieved some 
remarkable things.
  I met these young men and women across America. They are inspiring in 
terms of what they achieve coming from poor immigrant families. They 
are the valedictorians of their classes, they are presidents and stars 
on the sports teams and the people who win the college bowls and they 
are undocumented. They have no country and they have no place to go.
  So we said, in the name of compassion and justice, give these young 
people a chance. I introduced the bill 10 years ago and I have been 
fighting ever since to pass it and this afternoon we will have the 
chance to move to this bill, the DREAM Act. But we don't make it easy 
on these young people. Despite the fact that half the Hispanics in this 
country today do not graduate from high school, we require, for 
example, that all children covered by the DREAM Act must graduate from 
high school. As to this argument by the Senator from Alabama that they 
may go to a phony or fake high school, let me tell you these young 
people are going to be carefully scrutinized. They have to meet the 
test.
  That is not all they have to meet. There will be other tests too. 
Have they been guilty of a felony or criminal activity beyond simple 
misdemeanors? It disqualifies them.
  Have they engaged in voter fraud or unlawful voting? It disqualifies 
them. Have they committed marriage fraud? It disqualifies them. Have 
they abused the student visa? It disqualifies them. Have they engaged 
in any kind of activity that would create a public health risk? It 
disqualifies them.
  For 10 years, these young people will have a chance to do one of two 
things: To enlist in our military--think of that. We have young 
undocumented people in this country today who are willing to risk their 
lives to serve in the U.S. military alongside our heroes, our men and 
women currently serving.
  Let me tell you the story of one I have met. This is Cesar Vargas. 
This is an extraordinary young man who came to New York at the age of 
5, brought here by his parents. When 9/11 occurred, Cesar Vargas went 
down to the recruiters' office and said: I want to sign up. I want to 
fight for my country.
  They said: Mr. Vargas, this is not your country. You may have lived 
here all your life, but you have no place here. You cannot enlist.
  He was disappointed, but he didn't quit. He went on to finish 
college. He is now in law school. Cesar Vargas is a student at the City 
University of New York School of Law, where he has a 3.0 GPA. He is 
fluent in Spanish, Italian, French and English and he is mastering 
Cantonese and Russian. When he graduates from law school, he will be a 
choice candidate at some major law firm, but that isn't what he wants 
to do. He wants to enlist in the military of the United States of 
America. He cannot do it today because Cesar Vargas, who has lived his 
entire life, to his knowledge, in this country, has no country. The 
DREAM Act will give him a chance to volunteer to serve America. If he 
does, it puts him on a path to become a citizen. I think that is fair.
  We also say that if a young person completes 2 years of college, we 
will put them on the path to legalization. Do you know what percentage 
of undocumented students go to college today? Five percent, 1 out of 
20. It is a huge obstacle for these people. Yet they are prepared to 
clear that obstacle and, if they do, they will wait for 10 years with 
conditional immigrant status. What does it mean? They have no legal 
rights for 10 years, even if they do these things--enlist in the 
military or go on to finish 2 years of college. For 10 years, they 
cannot draw a Pell grant, a Federal student loan, no Medicaid, no 
government health programs--they don't qualify for any of it for 10 
years. Then, we put them in a process of another 3 years of close 
examination and scrutiny before they reach the stage of legalization--
13 years.
  Do you know what. Some of them are going to make that journey 
successfully because that is who they are. If you meet these young 
people, you will understand some of the things said on the floor are so 
wrong. These are the most energetic, idealistic young people you can 
meet in your life. They are tomorrow's lawyers and doctors and 
engineers. That is why major business groups have endorsed this 
legislation, saying we need this talent pool. That is why the Secretary 
of Defense has endorsed this legislation, saying we need

[[Page 19150]]

these young men and women in our military to serve our Nation. We can 
give them a chance to serve, we can put them on a road that will be 
difficult but no more difficult than what they have gone through in 
their lives or we can say, no, wait for another day.
  Some of my colleagues have said we will take up the DREAM Act once 
the borders of America are safe. I have signed up for every bill, 
virtually everything that has been proposed to make our borders safe. 
Come July, we put $600 million more into border protection. I didn't 
object. Do it. Let's make our borders safe. But for goodness' sake, is 
it fair to say to these young people you cannot have a life until our 
borders are the safest in the world, when we have the longest border in 
the world between the United States and Mexico? Keep working on making 
those borders safe but give these young people a chance. These people 
embody what I consider to be the immigrant spirit which makes America 
what it is today.
  I am proud to stand here as the 47th Senator from Illinois and the 
son of an immigrant. My mother came to this country at the age of 2 
from Lithuania, and I thank God her mom and dad had the courage to get 
on that boat and come over here and fight the odds and give me a chance 
to become an American citizen and a Senator.
  That is what America is about. That is the story of our country, the 
strength, the determination of these immigrants and their children.
  These people are important to our future. These young men and women 
deserve that chance, and we will have an opportunity today. I know some 
vote against it for a variety of reasons, and I don't question their 
motives at all, but I hope they get a chance to meet these young 
people. They are all over Capitol Hill. They do not have paid 
lobbyists. They are walking around, usually in graduation gowns and 
mortar boards because that is what they want, a chance to go to school 
and improve themselves. If you meet them and talk to them, you will be 
convinced, as I am, that this is the single best thing we can do for 
the future of our country, the single best thing we can do in the name 
of justice. This is our current challenge when it comes to the future 
of immigration.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ignore and set 
aside some of the arguments that have been made that do not stand up to 
scrutiny. To understand what we are doing in this bill is to give these 
young people a chance but to hold them to a standard which very few of 
us can live up to. We want to make sure they apply within 1 year of 
this bill passing. We want to make sure they have their chance to 
succeed. When they do, we will be a better nation for it.
  All across this country the leaders at universities and colleges tell 
us these are the young people we want who will make this a better 
nation. Some of the arguments that have been made suggest this is going 
to be a piece of cake, it is so easy for these young people. It will 
not be. It will be a hard process and a difficult road to follow. But 
in the name of justice, in the name of fairness, give these young 
people a chance--a chance to be part of this great country.
  Every single one of us, but for those who were Native Americans here 
long before the White people arrived, have come to this country as 
immigrants--not this generation perhaps but in previous generations. 
Those who were African American have come against their will. The fact 
is, they are here, and they are what makes America the great Nation it 
is. Our diversity is our strength and these young people are as strong 
as they come.
  Let's pass the DREAM Act. Let's make these dreams come true. Let's 
stand, once and for all, and say this just Nation not only has room but 
welcomes all this talent that has come to our shores.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the DREAM 
Act. This important legislation would give eligible young people, who 
were brought to the United States as children, the opportunity to 
contribute meaningfully to the United States.
  This bill addresses just one small piece of the immigration debate, 
but it has a profound impact on the lives of undocumented youth. I have 
supported the DREAM Act since it was first introduced in 2001 by 
Senators Hatch and Durbin. Since then, the DREAM Act has had wide 
bipartisan support. It passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee 
twice.
  Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented youth graduate from 
American high schools. Most of these undocumented youth did not make a 
choice to come to the United States; they were brought here by their 
parents. Many of these young people grew up in the United States and 
have little or no memory of the countries they came from. They are 
hard-working young people dedicated to their education or serving in 
the Nation's military. They have stayed out of trouble. Some are 
valedictorians and honor roll students; some are community leaders, and 
have an unwavering commitment to serving the United States.
  Through no fault of their own, these young individuals lack the 
immigration status they need to realize their potential. Because of 
their undocumented status, they are ineligible to serve in the military 
and face tremendous obstacles to attending college. For many, English 
is their first language and they are just like every other American 
student.
  Now reaching adulthood, these young people are left with a dead end. 
They can't use their educations to contribute to their communities. 
They can't serve the country they call home by volunteering for 
military service.
  The DREAM Act provides an opportunity for these students to fulfill 
the American dream. It would permit students to become permanent 
residents if they came here as children, are long-term U.S. residents, 
have good moral character, and attend college or enlist in the military 
for 2 years.
  These students would have to wait for 10 years before becoming lawful 
permanent residents and undergo background and security checks and pay 
any back taxes. This is a multistep process, not a free pass.
  In addition, DREAM Act eligible students would not be eligible for in 
State tuition at State colleges and universities or Federal education 
grants. These students would only be eligible for Federal work study 
and student loans.
  The DREAM Act also contains tough criminal penalties for fraud and 
excludes students from participation in health insurance exchanges, 
Medicaid, food stamps, and other entitlement programs.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the DREAM Act would 
increase Federal revenues by $2.3 billion over 10 years and increase 
net direct spending by $912 million between 2011 and 2020. In addition, 
the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation 
estimate that enacting the bill would reduce deficits by about $1.4 
billion over 10 years.
  I would like to tell you about a few college students in California, 
who would benefit from the DREAM Act.

       Arthur Mkoian came to the United States from Armenia with 
     his mother when he was 3 years old. Arthur attended Bullard 
     High School in California, maintaining a 4.0 grade point 
     average. Arthur graduated in 2008 as his class valedictorian. 
     He is now in his second year at U.C. Davis, majoring in 
     biochemistry. Arthur maintains A grades, and is on the Dean's 
     Merit List. He hopes to continue on to study medicine, but 
     without the DREAM Act, his future remains uncertain.
       Nayely Arreola came to the United States with her parents 
     and younger brother in 1989, when she was only 3 years old. 
     Her family made their home in California, working hard to 
     succeed. The family was taken advantage of by a negligent 
     immigration attorney, who was later disbarred, who took away 
     their chance to legalize their status. Despite this, Nayely 
     is an excellent student. She was the first member of her 
     family to graduate high school and went on to graduate from 
     Fresno Pacific University. While she was in college, Nayely 
     maintained outstanding grades and became president of her 
     class.
       Ivan Rosales came to the United States when he was 10 
     months old. His family settled in San Bernardino, CA, where 
     Ivan excelled in school. He found out about his undocumented 
     status in the 7th grade when he could not accept an award he 
     earned at a science fair because he didn't have a Social 
     Security number. Ivan is a presidential scholar who graduated 
     within the top 1 percent of high school graduates in San

[[Page 19151]]

     Bernardino County. He is currently a senior at the California 
     State University and is a pre-med biology major. He hopes to 
     become a doctor in the army someday and says that it would be 
     an honor to provide care to the brave men and women risking 
     their lives for this country.

  The United States is worse off if it lets the talents of these young 
people go to waste. They have demonstrated their commitment to this 
country's ideals through their academic success, leadership, and 
dedication to their communities. It is in the Nation's best interest to 
provide talented young people the ability to become full members of our 
society.
  The DREAM Act has widespread support from labor, business, education, 
civil rights, and religious groups, who recognize that the potential of 
these young people should not be lost.
  The presidents and chancellors of several universities including the 
University of California, California State University, the University 
of Washington, Arizona State University, the University of Minnesota, 
the University of Utah, and Washington State University recently wrote 
a joint letter expressing their support of the DREAM Act. In that 
letter, they state that in this age of international economic 
competition, ``the U.S. needs all of the talent that it can acquire and 
these students represent an extraordinary resource for the country . . 
. it is an economic imperative.''
  Businesses such as the Microsoft Corporation support the DREAM Act. 
The Microsoft Corporation believes in the DREAM Act because, ``It is 
essential to our nation's competitiveness and success to nurture the 
talent we have and to incorporate bright, hardworking students into the 
workforce to become the next generation of leaders in this country.''
  Retired GEN Colin Powell, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and a former Secretary of State, and other current and former 
military leaders support the DREAM Act because it would greatly enhance 
military recruitment. The DREAM Act is included in the Department of 
Defense's fiscal year 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to help the military 
``shape and maintain a mission-ready All Volunteer Force.''
  In 2006, then-Under Secretary of Defense David Chu testified that 
many of the DREAM Act eligible students have the attributes needed in 
the military--``education, aptitude, fitness, and moral 
qualifications.'' They should not be prevented from joining the 
military because of their undocumented status.
  These students have been raised in the United States and educated 
here. Often times, they did not choose to be here, but this is the only 
home they know. They have worked hard to graduate from high school 
under adversity. Many are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to 
serve in the military of this country--the country they feel is their 
own. They are class presidents, gifted athletes and musicians, aspiring 
scientists, engineers, teachers, and physicians. We should not put up a 
barrier to their potential to give back to this country. Instead, we 
should pass the DREAM Act and allow these students to succeed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, one of the many values that makes America 
so great is that no matter where we start off from in life, we believe 
that we all deserve to have a shot at the American dream.
  We all deserve an opportunity to work hard, support our families, and 
give back to the Nation that has been there for us all of our lives.
  This is an American value I cherish. It is one I feel very strongly 
we ought to maintain and strengthen. And it's why I stand here today to 
talk about the DREAM Act, which would help us do exactly that.
  This bill is about giving those that know no other country but the 
United States an opportunity.
  An opportunity to give back as a successful member of society, an 
opportunity to serve in the military and to risk their lives to defend 
the values we hold dear, an opportunity to reach a legal status that 
allows them to come out of the shadows, and an opportunity to reap the 
benefits of the fact that they have worked hard and played by the 
rules.
  The DREAM Act would allow a select group of undocumented students a 
path to become permanent residents if they came to this country as 
children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, and 
attend college for at least 2 years or enlist in the military.
  Under this bill, tens of thousands of well-qualified potential 
recruits would become eligible for military service for the first time.
  These are young people who love our country and are eager to serve in 
the Armed Forces during a time of war.
  It would also make qualified students eligible for temporary legal 
immigration status upon high school graduation which would lead to 
permanent residency if they attend college.
  And most importantly--it would tell young people--who have studied, 
who have worked multiple jobs, who have often overcome poverty and 
hurdles that few other young people face--that the American dream is 
alive and well.
  This is about our values as a Nation.
  But it is also about real communities. And real people in my home 
State of Washington and across the country.
  I recently heard from a student named Jessica who is a senior at 
Washington State University.
  Jessica shared how she is on the verge of completing her degree and 
would like nothing more than to continue on to get her master's degree 
in education so she could give back to her community.
  But like so many young people who would benefit from passage of this 
bill, for Jessica this is simply not a reality.
  Because we cannot move this bill, Jessica's dream of helping to 
improve our education system has been dashed.
  Jessica writes that while the rest of her classmates attend career 
fairs and interviews she battles with the nightmare of having to do 
menial labor for the rest of her life or returning to a country she has 
never known.
  She ended her letter about the chance this bill would provide her by 
saying the following:

       The DREAM Act is the only hope that I have to be a 
     productive citizen in the future.
       I am amazingly thankful for the opportunities that this 
     country has offered me and my family and the only thing that 
     I want to do is to give back.
       I would like to be given the opportunity and privilege to 
     be able to obtain the American Dream which is entitled to the 
     citizens of this beautiful country.
       Please don't continue to close the doors on exemplary 
     individuals.
       We want to become a part of this nation and continue to 
     live on the values and principles written in the Constitution 
     because this is the only way we know.

  The only way that can happen--the only way any of these young people 
can get that shot--is if we pass this bill.
  Jessica is just one of the young people whose life this affects--but 
I have received hundreds of stories just like hers.
  And this issue touches so many more across the country.
  This bill is a first step towards fixing an immigration system that 
is clearly broken with real solutions that will help real people.
  And for me, this isn't just about immigration, it is about what type 
of country we want to be.
  America has long been a beacon of hope for people across the world.
  And I believe that to keep that beacon bright we need to make sure 
young people are given a shot at the American dream.
  The dream that was there for me, that is there for my children and 
grandchild, and that is there for millions of others across this great 
country.
  So once again, I am calling on Senate Republicans to end their long 
efforts to block this legislation.
  Let's pass this bill today. Let's allow young people who have lived 
nearly their entire lives here to help boost our economy, help enrich 
our schools, and help defend our country.
  Let's get back to common sense.
  And let's keep working toward comprehensive immigration reform that 
helps our economy, affords the opportunities we have offered to 
generations of immigrants, maintains those great American values that I 
hold so dear, and improves our security.

[[Page 19152]]


  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I come to the floor today 
because I have not forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001. I 
have not forgotten the brave men and women who risked their lives and 
lost their lives on that fateful day when 19 men brought terrorism to 
our American shores.
  Today the Senate held a procedural vote on whether to proceed to a 
House bill that would create a program dedicated exclusively to provide 
screening and treatment to the first responders and other men and women 
who participated in rescue efforts at the World Trade Center.
  As I have said repeatedly, the intent of the House bill and the work 
of my colleague, Mrs. Gillibrand, are honorable and good. As I have 
said in every meeting that I have held--whether meeting with 
firefighters and police officers in Massachusetts, whether it be with 
Mayor Bloomberg of New York City or New York City Police Commissioner 
Kelly--I support their efforts and their good work and dedication to 
make sure that none of the heroes from September 11, 2001, are left 
behind or forgotten.
  We should not forget the lives that were lost that day. The lives 
that were risked that day. And those who continue to live with scars 
from that day. And I can assure you, we won't.
  I agree with my colleague, Mrs. Gillibrand that the House bill is a 
good start on how we can provide benefits to the first responders but 
that we need to do so in a realistic and pragmatic way.
  Like many of my colleagues, I do not agree with how the House 
proposes to pay for these benefits. Taxing businesses--especially in 
this economic environment--is not a realistic way to generate revenue. 
And I think my colleague from New York and others agree that raising 
taxes on businesses to the tune of billions of dollars is neither 
appropriate nor realistic.
  I am encouraged that the Senators from New York are serious about 
seeking a compromise and finding an alternative mechanism to provide a 
funding source. They have offered additional ideas for how we can 
provide these benefits. And I have offered ideas on how we can provide 
these benefits. This is not an easy task. Finding nearly $8 billion in 
funding that will garner enough support in the Senate is not easy.
  I remain committed to working with my colleagues on this issue.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, a bipartisan measure 
that will guarantee our Nation's law enforcement officers, firefighters 
and emergency medical personnel the right to bargain collectively with 
their employers. I have been proud to work with Senator Gregg on this 
important legislation for many years. I also want to acknowledge my 
good friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, who long championed this bill.
  Now more than ever, the risks taken by our first responders are 
greater than they have ever been. From the increased risk of terrorist 
attacks, to the catastrophic hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires that 
have ravaged our country from coast to coast, each and every day we ask 
more from our emergency workers, and they always rise to the challenge. 
These are people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to serving 
their communities--making the streets safe, fighting fires, providing 
prehospital emergency medical care, conducting search-and-rescue 
missions when a building collapses or a natural disaster occurs, 
responding to hazardous materials emergencies, and so much more.
  The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act provides these 
brave men and women with basic rights to bargain collectively, a right 
that workers in many other industries have used effectively to improve 
relations with their supervisors. This bill is carefully crafted to 
allow States a great deal of flexibility to implement plans that will 
work best from them. All it requires is that States provide public 
safety workers with the most basic collective bargaining rights--the 
right to form and join unions and to collectively bargain over wages, 
hours, and working conditions. It also will require a mechanism for 
settling any labor disputes. These are rights that a majority of 
States, including my home State of Connecticut, already provide these 
workers, and this bill does nothing to interfere with States whose laws 
already provide these fundamental rights.
  This bill will allow States to continue enforcing right-to-work laws 
they may have on the books, which prohibit contracts requiring union 
membership as a condition of employment. This bill even allows States 
to entirely exempt small communities with fewer than 5,000 residents or 
fewer than 25 full-time employees.
  Importantly, this bill takes every precaution to ensure that the 
right to collectively bargain will not interfere with the critical role 
these workers play in keeping our communities safe. It explicitly 
prohibits any strikes, lockouts, or other work stoppages. But the key 
to this bill is truly to foster a cooperative atmosphere between our 
first responders and the agencies they work for. Cooperation between 
labor and management will inevitably lead to public safety agencies 
being better able to serve their communities. Unions can help ensure 
that vital public services run smoothly during a crisis, and this bill 
will further that goal.
  I would add that this legislation enjoys enormous bipartisan support. 
During the 110th Congress, the House passed it by a vote of 314-97, and 
the Senate voted to invoke cloture by a vote of 69-29. In the 111th 
Congress, the Cooperation Act has five Republican cosponsors, including 
the lead sponsor, Senator Gregg. Moreover, the House version has 50 
Republican cosponsors. In an era that is all too often dominated by 
party-line votes, this is an extraordinary show of support from both 
parties. That is because we recognize the unique and essential role 
these workers play in every single community, and we recognize that by 
granting them these basic rights they will be able to better serve 
those communities.
  This bill addresses some of the most critical concerns of our 
Nation's first responders. It goes beyond negotiating wages, hours and 
benefits. In this circumstance, for this group of people, it means so 
much more. It means that the men and women who run into burning 
buildings, resuscitate accident victims, and patrol the streets of our 
towns and cities can sit down with their supervisors to relate their 
real life experiences. They can discuss their concerns and use their 
on-the-ground expertise to help improve their service to the community. 
Granting our first responders this basic right is not only in their 
best interest--it is in all of our best interests. It will allow these 
men and women to better serve their communities by fostering a spirit 
of cooperation with the agencies and towns that employ them.
  When tragedies have struck us, from the September 11 attacks to 
Hurricane Katrina, it is these workers who are the first people on the 
scene and the last to leave. We owe them everything, and all they have 
asked of us in return is dignity and respect in the workplace. They 
stand with us every single day on the job, and it is time we stand with 
them. I urge all my colleagues to join me and the millions of first 
responders who form the backbone of our Nation's homeland security by 
voting to pass this crucial legislation.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 662, S. 3991, the Public Safety 
     Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2010.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, 
           Daniel K. Inouye, Richard J. Durbin, Byron L. Dorgan, 
           Jack Reed, Jeff Bingaman, Dianne Feinstein, Mark 
           Begich, Robert Menendez, Daniel K. Akaka, Sherrod 
           Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Barbara Boxer.


[[Page 19153]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Was there 10 
minutes to both sides?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator McConnell said his side did not 
want the 10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to have 3 additional minutes 
before we vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Just briefly, I would say to my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Durbin, who I know cares deeply about this issue, I 
think there is not an injustice today. The law is if you are born here, 
even from illegal parents, you are a citizen. But if you come into the 
country or are brought into the country, you are here illegally. That 
is what the law is. It is not an injustice to enforce the law.
  No. 2, I would note that millions of people apply and wait for 
citizenship, but these individuals who came illegally--maybe at age 14, 
15, 16--apply and get to the head of the line over people who have 
waited for a long time. I do not know that that is justice.
  The military already allows people who are not citizens and people 
who are illegally in the country to join the military and they are 
given citizenship.
  Lots of them achieve citizenship that way. This bill is not necessary 
to do that. For 10 years, the cost is scored by CBO. It is $5 billion. 
There is a cost. In addition, for Pell grants--these are grants, not 
loans students get to go to college--these individuals would be 
eligible for those as soon as they get in college, after even a GED 
instead of a high school diploma.
  This idea that we are already doing enough at the border and we are 
doing everything that is possible, I would note this administration has 
not completed the fence Congress authorized. We are not deporting 
people effectively. They have sued the State of Arizona that tried to 
help the Federal Government enforce the law. They have refused to make 
the E-Verify Program permanent. No workplace raids are being conducted. 
They were stopped soon after this administration took office.
  So I would say, for a host of reasons, we are not doing what can be 
done and should be done to bring the lawlessness to an end, and to 
therefore put us in a position to wrestle, as a nation, with how to 
deal with people who violated the law and came illegally.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3991, a bill to provide collective bargaining 
rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political 
subdivisions, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Brownback
     Gregg
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 55, the nays are 43. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as always happens, there are always bumps in 
the road here in the Senate, most of which we don't foresee. We have 
scheduled now four votes. We are going to move to the next one as soon 
as we can. The House of Representatives is in the process of voting on 
the DREAM Act, but they may not get to it for a couple of hours. I need 
to have them finish their vote before we vote over here. So having said 
that, we may be in a little downtime here after we finish this vote for 
a couple of hours or whenever we can get to it. They have to have that 
vote completed over there. They know we are in a hurry. We also will 
get today from them the continuing resolution that will allow us to do 
something about spending. I am doing my best to work through these 
issues, including the issue that has overwhelmed us all the last few 
days, and that is the framework for the tax thing that has been 
negotiated. The main reason for interrupting is the next two votes will 
not flow automatically. We need to do them sometime tonight. I am 
working with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, Senator Levin and 
others to try to come up with some way to move forward on the Defense 
bill. We will see if that can be done. There are a lot of other things 
going on around here such as the START treaty and a few other things. 
We are trying to work through that. I am sorry we will not be able to 
proceed right through these votes, but we may have to have a downtime 
for a few hours.

                          ____________________