[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14968-14978]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     TSA OFFICE OF INSPECTION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                      Federal Perkins Loan Program

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, much attention has appropriately been 
focused upon our next 36 hours in the Congress. A lot of attention--
again, appropriately--focused on whether there would be a government 
shutdown for failure to pass a continuing resolution. Now we believe 
that is, hopefully, going to be avoided.
  In just under 36 hours, there are a number of other vital programs 
that will expire, lapse, or sunset if this Congress does not take 
appropriate action. I am here to join my colleagues, Senator Collins 
and, in a moment, Senator Ayotte, to call attention to one of those 
critical programs, one of those vital programs, and that is the Federal 
Perkins Loan Program, the authorization of which will expire in less 
than 36 hours if we do not take collective action in this body.
  I am here today to call on our colleagues across the aisle to join me 
in supporting the extension of the Federal Perkins Loan Program. 
Already we have seen encouraging bipartisan support for the program 
here in the Senate. The Presiding Officer, Senator Collins, Senator 
Kirk, Senator Ayotte, and just today Senator Thune have all joined me 
and more than 20 Democrats last week in submitting a resolution 
highlighting the importance of the Federal Perkins Loan Program and 
urging its extension.
  Yesterday our colleagues in the House of Representatives unanimously 
passed a measure that would extend the program for 1 year. I am hoping 
this body will do exactly the same. While I look forward to a broader 
conversation about improving Federal support for students as we look to 
reauthorize the Higher Education Act, we simply cannot sit idly by and 
watch the Federal Perkins Loan Program expire as America's students are 
left with such uncertainty.
  Since 1958, the Federal Perkins Loan Program has been successful in 
helping Americans access affordable higher education with low-interest 
loans for students who cannot borrow or afford more expensive private 
student loans. In my home State of Wisconsin, the program provides more 
than 20,000 low-income students with more than $41 million in aid. The 
impact of this program isn't just isolated to the Badger State. In 
fact, the Federal Perkins Loan Program aids over one-half million 
students with financial need each year, across 1,500 institutions of 
higher education. The schools originate, service, and collect the 
fixed-interest-rate loans. What is more, institutions maintain loans 
available for future students through a revolving fund.
  Since the program's creation, institutions have invested millions of 
dollars of their own funds into the program. In addition to making 
higher education accessible for low-income students, the program serves 
as an incentive for people who wish to go into public service as 
careers by offering targeted loan cancellations for specific 
professions in areas of high national needs, such as teaching, nursing, 
and law enforcement.
  As a Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions and as a U.S. Senator representing a State with a rich history 
of investment in cherishing of higher education, it is a top priority 
for me to fight to ensure the Federal Perkins Loan Program continues 
for generations to come.
  I am fighting for students like Benjamin Wooten. Benjamin is a 2004 
UW-Madison graduate and a small business owner from Genoa, WI, whose 
family fell on hard times while he was attending school. Ben shared 
with me:

       The fact that I did not have to pay interest while I was in 
     school was a huge help to me. I was attending school full 
     time, working and trying to live on a meager budget. . . . I 
     am a grateful and successful small business owner. I paid my 
     loan off in full about a year ago with pride and excitement. 
     I know that when I repaid my loan it was returned to a 
     revolving fund and will be lent back out to other students in 
     need.

  I am also fighting for students like Brittany McAdams. Brittany is a 
medical school student with a passion for pediatrics and helping the 
most vulnerable among us--something that doesn't always yield a 
significant paycheck, especially in comparison to some of her medical 
school peers. Brittany said:

       I want to be able to treat patients from all socioeconomic 
     levels, despite their ability to pay. In other words, I want 
     to do important work for less money than most other 
     physicians. . . . The Perkins Loan is so valuable because it 
     does not collect interest while we are in school. To me, that 
     says the government believes that what I am doing with my 
     life is important. That our country needs more doctors 
     willing to tackle primary care. That while we need to pay for 
     our graduate degrees, that they are going to do their part to 
     make it just a bit easier. The Perkins Loan makes me feel 
     valued and respected and even more passionate about my work.

  Finally, I am here today fighting for students like Nayeli Spahr. 
Nayeli was raised by a single immigrant mother who worked two full-time 
jobs. She attended 10 different schools in 3 different States before 
she finished high school. Without the Federal Perkins Loan Program, 
Nayeli said that her opportunity to get a college education would have 
been ``an illusory dream.''
  Today, Nayeli is the first in her family to finish college and is now 
in her last year of medical school and is planning to work with those 
who are underserved in our urban communities. She finished by telling 
me:

       The Perkins loan program helped me reach this point. And, 
     its existence is essential to provide that opportunity for 
     other young adults wanting to believe in themselves and to 
     empower their communities to be better. Please save it.

  You don't have to look very far to find the significant impact of the 
Federal Perkins Loan Program--the significant impact that it has on 
America's students. There are thousands of stories like the few that I 
just shared, representing thousands and thousands of students who are 
still benefiting from the opportunities provided to them by this hugely 
successful program. Let's show the American people and the one-half 
million students impacted by this program that we can

[[Page 14969]]

come together, that we can find a bipartisan and commonsense solution.
  I urge my colleagues to immediately take up and pass the House bill 
so that we can avoid another crisis of our own creation and put 
America's students and our Nation's future first.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today and join my colleagues, and I 
wish to thank Senator Baldwin from Wisconsin for the speech that she 
gave and for her leadership--as well as yours, Mr. President--on the 
resolution to extend the Federal Perkins Loan Program. This is 
something we should take up and pass right now. There is strong 
bipartisan support to do so.
  Yesterday the House of Representatives passed the Higher Education 
Extension Act of 2015, which would extend this important program for an 
additional year. But if the Senate does not act by tomorrow, this 
program, which helps the most financially needy students receive a 
college education, will expire. We can't let that happen.
  I have heard from students, colleges in my State, universities, and 
financial aid administrators who have urged us to act and to make sure 
we continue this program, which allows students with exceptional 
financial needs to have access to low-interest loans they need so they 
can get higher education, live the American dream, and contribute to 
our society. Making sure they have that access is critical.
  In New Hampshire, approximately 5,000 students received a Perkins 
loan during the last academic year. Across the country, as Senator 
Baldwin mentioned, over one-half million students received a Perkins 
loan during the 2013-2014 academic year. That is one-half million 
students across this country that will be impacted--their access to 
higher education negatively impacted--if we do not take up the House-
passed bill and immediately pass it in this body.
  The cost of higher education in the United States continues to 
skyrocket. My home State of New Hampshire has the highest average 
student-loan debt in the country--either putting college out of reach 
for too many or requiring students to take on substantial amounts of 
debt in order to get a college education that is often hard to repay, 
especially with the first job they receive right out of college.
  There are several things we must do to address the issue of rising 
college costs, including, in my view, requiring schools to have more 
skin in the game and providing more transparency for students and for 
parents. But as we stand here today, there is one thing right now we 
can do to help make college just a little bit more affordable, 
especially for low-income students and families, and that is by taking 
up and passing the House bill to extend the Federal Perkins Loan 
Program for 1 more year. Allowing Perkins to expire would mean that 
hundreds of thousands of low-income students across the country could 
see a decrease of about $2,000 on average in their student aid 
packages. For many, that could put college out of reach because they 
are counting on it. If we don't take this up now, we will be in a 
position of really leaving those students hanging, and we should not do 
that. We should not allow that to happen.
  I again thank my colleague from Wisconsin and the Presiding Officer, 
who is from Ohio, for his leadership.
  Again, this has such strong bipartisan support. I hope we get it done 
today. Let's do it now. Let's make sure we extend the Perkins Loan 
Program for another year, just as the House did, and ensure we can work 
together to make college more affordable for everyone so that everyone 
has the opportunity to live and achieve the American dream.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Perkins Loan 
Program as well. We heard a number of important presentations here 
about the critical nature of this program to students across the 
country who are trying to fulfill the American dream, and one way to do 
that is to have access to higher education.
  I have often said in the context of early learning, whether we are 
talking about early learning programs or prekindergarten programs, if 
kids learn more now, they will earn more later. That linkage, that bond 
between earning and learning is, of course, at the core of what we are 
talking about when it comes to higher education as well.
  The benefit of a higher education has become so essential not only to 
being able to learn and to grow but also to getting the best job you 
can to be able to move forward. One of the ways young people are able 
to do that is by having access to Perkins loans. They are fixed-rate, 
low-interest loans, and they are meant for students who, as we heard 
before on this floor, have exceptional financial needs. For example, in 
Pennsylvania, in the 2013 to 2014 school year, nearly 40,000 students 
in Pennsylvania, at more than 100 colleges and universities, were able 
to go to school because of these loans. Nationwide, more than 539,000 
students were helped. For many students, these loans are the difference 
between staying in school and working toward a bright future or 
literally dropping out of school.
  According to the Coalition of Higher Education Assistance 
Organizations, one-quarter of all loan recipients are from families 
with incomes of less than $30,000 a year. We all have examples in our 
States.
  I have one example from the northwestern part of Pennsylvania. 
Edinboro University is part of our State system of higher education. I 
had a chance to speak at their graduation this year.
  Nikki Ezzolo, a 2015 graduate of Edinboro University, said the 
following:

       I am sending this to you to tell you that I just started my 
     new job at Highmark.

  Highmark is a major health care company in western Pennsylvania.
  She goes on to say:

       I am a single mom who wasn't your normal 20 year old at 
     college. I was an adult student who had left school more than 
     once when I thought I couldn't do it. The last time I came 
     back I was dedicated to getting my degree but I didn't have 
     enough financial aid to help me pay my bill. I had messed up 
     along the way in school and used up my only chance of having 
     a good life with my daughter.
       I wanted to thank you for the perkins aid that I needed in 
     order to graduate. I am proud to be a college grad and my 
     daughter is proud of me too. I have always been a bartender 
     and this week I started my career at Highmark. I am so 
     grateful for getting the perkins money to help me. I know 
     that I wouldn't be where I am right now without it and that 
     is a really scary thought.

  Whether it is Nikki from northwestern Pennsylvania or Kayla McBride, 
a recent graduate of Temple University--Temple University is all the 
way at the other corner of our State in southeastern Pennsylvania. 
Kayla also talked about the Perkins loan. Kayla said:

       I wanted to extend my gratitude to Temple University and 
     the Bursar's Office.
       With the rising costs of tuition, attending college might 
     seem impossible for some students. I come from a single-
     family home and my mom did everything in her power to see 
     that I graduated. When my mom was laid off from her job, I 
     thought graduating would no longer be possible. I received 
     some scholarships, but it was still not enough to cover the 
     entire cost of tuition as well as room and board.
       Without the assistance of the Federal Perkins Loan 
     finishing college would've been very difficult. I am now a 
     college graduate and I am thankful for all of the financial 
     assistance I received during my undergraduate years. College 
     can be an expensive investment, but I am glad that I had the 
     Perkins Loan to assist me.

  Both cases exemplify and validate the importance of the Perkins Loan 
Program.
  Since the 1960s, over 30 million students have been helped by Perkins 
loans, and we have to do everything we can to continue the program.
  What we are trying to do now is very simple. We are trying to get 
some time in order to fully update and reauthorize Perkins loans so 
that all students have access to an affordable college education. I 
urge the majority to work with us on this bipartisan effort to allow 
the bill to pass so we can move forward and continue the Perkins Loan 
Program even as we focus on changes in the future.

[[Page 14970]]

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last night, with an overwhelming vote, the 
Senate ended debate that will conclude the postcloture period, which 
will run until midnight tonight. Tomorrow morning the Senate will pass 
a continuing resolution appropriations bill that will keep the lights 
on and keep the Federal Government running.
  I have told my constituents that the irony of this is that we only 
appropriate funds for about 30 percent of the government, and half of 
that 30 percent, roughly, is for defense spending; 70 percent, as the 
Presiding Officer knows well since he is an expert in this area, is on 
autopilot.
  Since 2011, since the Budget Control Act, we have actually done a 
remarkably decent job of freezing the growth of discretionary spending. 
It is roughly at the 2007 appropriations level. But the problem is that 
without bipartisan cooperation, we are unable to touch the 70 percent 
of government spending that has been growing by leaps and bounds, and 
that simply can't continue.
  This year, for the first time since I believe 2009, under the new 
majority, the 114th Congress actually passed a budget, and that was a 
notable achievement. I am almost a little sheepish about mentioning 
that as an achievement because most people across America would think 
that is not something to be particularly proud of and that that should 
happen routinely, so why give anybody a pat on the back for doing 
something they ought to have done in the first place? But our budgets 
have been missing under this administration, and literally the last 
budget that was passed was 2009.
  One of the benefits of having a budget is there is a regular 
appropriations process. That may sound like getting in the weeds for 
most people, but this is the money we should be appropriating subject 
to spending caps to keep the government running. It is for items such 
as military construction and veterans' benefits, paying our men and 
women in uniform through the Defense appropriations bill. Those are 
essential items on which I know we would all agree.
  The only reason we had to deal with the drama of this so-called 
continuing resolution is because notwithstanding the fact that we 
actually passed a budget and notwithstanding the fact that the various 
appropriations subcommittees had passed a budget and indeed the whole 
Appropriations Committee had voted them out and they were available for 
action on the floor, our friends across the aisle decided they were 
going to block those appropriations bills. Given the fact that under 
Senate rules it takes 60 votes to close off debate, our only 
alternative was to pass a continuing resolution, which I believe will 
fly out of here tomorrow morning with overwhelming support. It is a 
terrible way to do business, and it creates needless uncertainty for 
the people we ought to be caring a lot about--people such as our 
veterans and our military servicemembers.
  Even though we had the opportunity to move the appropriations process 
under what we call regular order around here and not resort to this 
continuing resolution process, our Democratic colleagues decided 
instead to turn their misguided filibuster summer into an equally 
misguided filibuster fall.
  Many of these bills, of course, came out with strong support. Here is 
an example of some of the oddity of this process: Some of the bills 
they blocked were the very same pieces of legislation they supported in 
the Appropriations Committee. For example, many of my colleagues from 
across the aisle praised elements of the Defense appropriations bill, 
only to then buckle under the Democratic leadership's pressure and 
twice block the bill from going forward.
  In some cases, our Democratic colleagues were quick to send out press 
releases to their constituents back home celebrating their 
accomplishments under these very same bills and claiming a victory that 
would benefit their home State. That was true in particular of both of 
our colleagues representing the State of New Jersey. When the bill was 
overwhelmingly voted out of committee, our colleagues from New Jersey 
applauded funding for a bill for F-16 fighters based in their State. 
The junior Senator said: ``The inclusion of this funding is a deserving 
victory for our U.S. Air National Guard.'' Similarly, the senior 
Senator said: ``Securing this funding in the Department of Defense 
Appropriation bill is a win, win, win.'' But these same Senators 
filibustered that bill on the Senate floor. How do you explain that one 
back home? And they did that twice, along with virtually all of our 
Democratic colleagues.
  Unfortunately, the other 11 appropriations bills haven't made it to 
the Senate floor because the majority leader recognizes that it is 
probably a futile effort to do so--bills that many of our colleagues 
celebrated, only to then refuse to take action that would move them 
forward, at the behest of Democratic leadership.
  We didn't have to resort to this drama, and believe me, our 
Democratic colleagues have been beating the drum, saying: There is 
going to be a shutdown. There is going to be a shutdown.
  Well, they are the ones who created this crisis in the first place 
that necessitated the passage of a continuing resolution by 
filibustering the very same appropriations bills many of them voted for 
in committee and sent out press releases saying: Look at me. Look at 
what I have done for my constituents.
  I don't know how to put a better word on it, but I think it reeks of 
hypocrisy at the very least.
  But I also believe we have a responsibility--those of us who choose 
to operate in a responsible fashion--to try to govern the best we can 
even in the face of such arbitrary hypocrisy by some of our opponents. 
They blocked the very same bills on the floor that they voted for in 
the Appropriations Committee, thus creating this ``crisis.'' I put 
quotes around that. There was never really a crisis because we knew we 
were going to do our job and make sure we kept the lights on, paid the 
money to our veterans for the benefits they earned, and that our 
military--many of whom are in harm's way defending our freedoms and 
those of our allies--was going to be taken care of. But the idea that 
you would vote for bills in committee and then come to the floor and 
block them is hard to explain, and, in fact, I can't explain it other 
than using the word ``hypocrisy.''
  Another element of this discussion has been whether we would use this 
continuing resolution to cut off money to Planned Parenthood. As we 
know, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 
Well over 300,000 abortions are done at Planned Parenthood facilities 
each year.
  I want to assure our Democratic colleagues, even though they have 
filibustered our efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and to make sure 
that not one penny of tax dollars goes to support the No. 1 abortion 
provider in America, this fight is not over, based on their 
filibustering of the defund Planned Parenthood legislation that we 
voted on or their refusal to even consider the pain-capable abortion 
ban.
  We have said it before, but it bears repeating. I think most people 
would be shocked to find out that the United States is only one of 
seven nations in the world that allows late-term abortions after a baby 
in utero is a viable human being. We are right there alongside the 
great defenders of human rights such as China, North Korea, and 
Vietnam. While many States such as my State have imposed limitations at 
the State level, I think it is appropriate for us to recognize that 
medical technology has now allowed us to save preterm babies that we 
could not in the past. In fact, the distinguished Presiding Officer, I 
believe, has shown me a picture on his iPhone of a child that was born 
that weighed, I believe, somewhere around 1 pound at 20 weeks or so.
  So we ought to be having this debate because I think what it reflects 
is who we are as a nation and whether we want to continue to subsidize 
the sort of horrific practices we have seen depicted in some of these 
videos, and

[[Page 14971]]

most of them involve late-term abortions because that is where the 
money is. That is where Planned Parenthood harvests tissue from these 
late-term babies and then sells them. The only question is whether they 
do it with the appropriate legal informed consent and whether they do 
it for profit, as some of these videos would suggest, both of which, by 
the way, are banned by current law--selling it for profit and doing it 
without informed consent. Both of those are current provisions of the 
law. We are conducting investigations in four different committees in 
the Congress to make sure Planned Parenthood is not in violation of 
current law, in addition to the steps we have begun to both make sure 
no tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood to subsidize their abortion 
practice--the largest abortion provider in the United States--and then 
to redirect that money to provide for women's health at community 
health centers and other places.
  I was surprised this morning when I caught a glimpse of the hearing 
that is occurring over in the House of Representatives where Cecile 
Richards, the chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood, is 
testifying. Somebody asked her about her compensation. I was shocked 
that she said: Well, I get paid $520,000 a year--$520,000 a year. This 
money--the vast majority of the money that Planned Parenthood gets is 
Federal tax dollars, primarily through Medicaid. So, in effect, the 
taxpayers are subsidizing the chief executive officer of Planned 
Parenthood--the No. 1 abortion provider in the country--her salary of 
$520,000 a year.
  I remember after the financial crisis in 2008, a number of our 
colleagues would come to the floor and say: We need to do something 
about these excessive salaries of people working in the financial 
services industry; this is an outrage. But I will tell my colleagues, I 
haven't heard one peep out of our colleagues across the aisle about the 
$520,000 that Cecile Richards is paid each year as CEO of Planned 
Parenthood, the No. 1 abortion provider in the country and an entity 
subsidized mainly or in large part, I should say, by U.S. tax dollars--
about one-half billion dollars a year. Maybe that is a discussion we 
ought to have.
  The last thing I want to say is I think it is important to stress, in 
the context of this debate, the value and the meaning of human life 
that the fight is not over with the votes we have had so far. It is 
important to stress how some of the advocates back home in Texas, for 
example--some of the strongest champions for the unborn in the 
country--have made clear how they hope their elected representatives 
will respond to these horrific videos and the current debate. Just 
yesterday, for example, the executive director of the Texas Alliance 
for Life, Dr. Joe Pojman, said he applauded the strong efforts of 
Republican leadership in Congress to move forward with the strategy of 
shifting funds from Planned Parenthood to better providers of women's 
health services--providers that are not part of the abortion industry. 
Indeed, that is exactly what the Texas legislature has done, and it is 
something we need to do. In his statement, Dr. Pojman went on to say 
that instead of a government shutdown, better options exist for 
achieving success.
  This is similar to the statement made by Carol Tobias earlier, the 
leader of the National Right to Life organization. In other words, at 
this pivotal moment in time, Congress has an opportunity to make 
progress with legislation that would further the cause for life and 
defend those who cannot defend themselves and to put on record all 100 
Members of the Senate. I know many people would prefer to look the 
other way because of the gruesomeness of this practice, particularly as 
it regards late-term fetuses--children who, if born, even though they 
are not full term at 40 weeks, could literally live outside of the 
womb. In fact, neonatologists, as I mentioned a moment ago, have 
demonstrated incredible capability of keeping these children alive even 
if they are born preterm.
  We will, I hope, have a vote on--Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska has 
introduced a bill that has actually passed the House of Representatives 
called ``the born alive'' bill. This bill simply would say, if a child 
is born alive as a result of a botched abortion, the health care 
provider must do everything in their power to save and preserve that 
life. I think it is important to get every Senator on record on that 
issue because this is a little bit different than the issue of 
defunding Planned Parenthood. I think we ought to do both. We ought to 
ban funding of tax dollars for Planned Parenthood, the No. 1 abortion 
provider in the country, but we ought to also focus on the 
desensitization of America and the world to some of these horrific 
practices, some of which we were shocked by when Kermit Gosnell, an 
abortion doctor in Pennsylvania, would literally deliver these babies 
alive and then kill them. I know people don't want to talk about it. 
They don't want to think about it. They would prefer to just look the 
other way, but we can't, in the name of our very humanity, look the 
other way. We have to deal with this and where better to have that 
debate and discussion and to put people on the record than right here 
in the U.S. Senate. That is what our plan is going forward.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Washington.


                      Federal Perkins Loan Program

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think a lot of people here talk about 
what they think everyone should be focused on, but what I think we 
should be focused on is that this month students across the country are 
making their way back to college campuses. When more Americans pursue 
their degrees beyond high school, it is actually good for our country. 
It strengthens the middle class. It strengthens the workforce that 
needs to compete in the 21st century global economy. So here in 
Congress what I believe we should be working on are ways to help more 
students earn a degree and gain a foothold into the middle class.
  Unfortunately, instead of keeping students' options open to help them 
succeed, we are facing another deadline and another artificial crisis. 
If we do not act in the Senate, the Perkins Loan Program will expire 
after tomorrow. That means that more than 100,000 students will no 
longer be eligible for this assistance over the next year. That is 
going to leave a lot of students in this country in the lurch.
  Without Perkins loans, students might have to take out private loans 
that have higher interest rates and fewer repayment options. So 
students would end up with a heavier burden of student debt or they 
might decide not to enroll in the first place. That is the exact 
opposite outcome we need for the future of this economy.
  In my home State of Washington, more than 15,000 students received 
Perkins loans last year. That includes about 4,700 students from the 
University of Washington. I want to make sure the next class of 
students has the same opportunity so they can better afford college.
  We in Congress need to supply students with more support to manage 
rising college costs, not less. I am hopeful that today we can extend 
the Perkins loan for 1 year while we work to reauthorize the Higher 
Education Act because there is no reason to block this bipartisan 
legislation that would give our students some certainty for next year.
  The Perkins Loan Program gives students with financial needs three 
things that private loans do not. The loans are low cost. They do not 
accrue interest while a student is enrolled and for 9 months afterward. 
That can reduce student debt by hundreds or even thousands of dollars. 
The loans provide flexible repayment terms, and they also give those 
who are interested in the public sector generous forgiveness options.
  The House Representatives has already acted to extend this program 
for 1 year. We should do the same before the clock runs out.
  I am so glad this effort to extend the Perkins Loan Program has 
strong bipartisan support in the Senate. It would provide new students 
with some certainty for the current school year. Today, students face 
unprecedented

[[Page 14972]]

challenges in financing their education. The cost of college has 
skyrocketed, and many students are struggling under the crushing burden 
of student debt. Preventing the Perkins Loan Program from expiring will 
not solve all of their problems. I hope we can continue this bipartisan 
work on ways to make college more affordable and rein in student debt.
  Passing this bill to extend the Perkins Loan Program is a step we can 
take so students don't have the rug pulled out from under them. There 
is no reason students should have to face this uncertainty and there is 
no reason we shouldn't be able to pass this by unanimous consent.
  I know firsthand how important education is for families and for our 
Nation's middle class. When I was 15, my dad was diagnosed with 
multiple sclerosis and, in a few short years, he couldn't work any 
longer. Without warning, my family had fallen on hard times, but 
instead of falling through the cracks, my brothers and sisters and I 
got a good public education at our schools and we had a country at our 
back that helped make sure we were able to go to college with student 
loans and what is now known as the Pell program. My mom got the skills 
she needed to find a better paying job at Lake Washington Vocational 
School. So even though we faced some hard times, we never lost hope 
that with a good education we would be able to find our footing and 
earn our way to a stable middle-class life.
  Students at colleges and universities across the country today are 
looking now to us to make sure they have a solid pathway into the 
middle class. So I urge my colleagues to support extending this program 
to make sure students have the financial aid tools they need so they 
can build their skills, grow our economy, and help lead the world in 
the 21st century.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I join my fellow colleague from 
Washington State, talking about the Perkins Loan Program. The House has 
already acted on this. They extended it for 1 year. All we are asking 
is that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle allow us to have the 
opportunity to do that here, probably by unanimous consent.
  It shouldn't be terribly controversial. After all, this is a program 
that is working. I am following a number of my colleagues today in 
talking about this. We just heard from Senator Murray. We also heard 
from Senators Collins, Baldwin, Ayotte, and Casey. This is a bipartisan 
effort. It is an attempt on our part to ensure that students are not 
going to fall between the cracks. They are getting started this fall in 
colleges and universities, and they are wondering whether this program 
is going to be here or whether we are going to allow it to expire. We 
ought to be sure these young people know that, yes, the program is 
going to be here and, yes, they are going to have the opportunity to 
get ahead by using this relatively low-cost student loan option that is 
focused on kids with the most need to be able to get an education.
  Since 1958 this program has been strong. It has been one that works. 
By the way, there is no appropriation involved. There is no spending 
involved here. It is a matter of allowing the program to continue. The 
program has what is called a revolving fund, where whenever somebody 
gets a loan and pays that money back, the money goes back to another 
student. This is an opportunity for us to continue a program that is 
working.
  If we don't pass it, we are going to have a situation where new loans 
will not be awarded. College tuition is already too tough. I hear it 
all the time from families back home and from students back home. One 
of the biggest concerns they have--we had a tele-townhall meeting last 
night, and one of the biggest concerns that people have, of course, is 
the cost of education. This is a way to ensure that young people can 
pursue their dreams, despite the fact that college tuitions are too 
high in many cases. This is a tool that is incredibly important.
  It is also a matching program that hasn't been talked about much on 
the floor today. The fact is that the program is administered by the 
schools, and the schools actually match so that they are providing some 
of the funding for this. That is another reason why I like this 
program.
  There are 67 colleges and universities in the Buckeye State, my State 
of Ohio, that participate and take advantage of this. I have gotten 
interesting correspondence from some of the schools and students. Last 
year there were 25,000 or so Ohio students who received Perkins loans. 
I heard from Kent State. They have 3,000 students involved in Perkins. 
I have heard from Ohio State, which has 1,700 students there. I have 
also heard from other schools. I have heard from the University of 
Toledo, Oberlin, and Ohio Wesleyan.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
some of the correspondence because it describes the needs of the 
program so well.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                   Kent State,

                                    Kent, Ohio, September 3, 2015.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor & 
         Pensions
       Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On 
     behalf of Kent State University, I write to you today in 
     support of reauthorizing the Federal Perkins Loan Program 
     before it is due to expire on September 30.
       Since its inception over 55 years ago, the Perkins Loan 
     Program has played an important role in providing need-based 
     financial aid for our students by distributing low-interest, 
     subsidized loans to those with demonstrated financial need.
       Kent State University students receive the largest volume 
     of Perkins Loans in the entire State of Ohio. Total 
     disbursements for the 2015-16 academic year alone are 
     estimated to reach over $9M.
       While there have not been federal capital contributions to 
     the Perkins Loan Program in recent years, universities have 
     continued to use existing resources to fund new loans for 
     needy students. Absent Congressional action before the end of 
     this month, these loans will cease to be disbursed and 
     hundreds of thousands of students across the nation will lose 
     a vital source of aid.
       In a higher education environment that focuses on access 
     and affordability, the expiration of the Perkins Loan Program 
     would have a devastating effect. I therefore urge that you 
     delay the expiration of the Perkins Loan Program until 
     Congress has the opportunity to enact a comprehensive 
     reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Beverly Warren,
     President.
                                  ____

                                   Oberlin College & Conservatory,


                                      Office of the President,

                                Oberlin, Ohio, September 18, 2015.
     Hon. Rob Portman,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Portman: I am writing to you as President of 
     Oberlin College asking that you intervene to extend the 
     Perkins Loan Program, which is set to expire on September 30, 
     2015. As you may be aware, the Perkins Program provides 
     federal funds to institutions of higher education in order to 
     offer low-interest loans of up to $5,500 per year to 
     students. More than 500,000 students received Perkins Loans 
     in the 2013-2014 academic year, totaling more than $1 billion 
     in disbursed student aid. However, not all the funding for 
     this program comes from the federal government, as up to one-
     third of the funds appropriated by the federal government are 
     matched by participating institutions. Ultimately, Perkins 
     Loans are an important piece of the campus-based federal aid 
     model, offering flexibility and discretion to financial aid 
     officers to help students afford their higher education.
       At Oberlin College we have committed to meeting 100% of 
     every student's demonstrated financial need. While we do this 
     predominantly with grant dollars, the Perkins Loan Program is 
     a vital component in making an Oberlin education affordable 
     for both our low and middle-income families. Last year alone 
     more than 320 Oberlin students received funding of over $1 
     million from the Perkins Program. Many students tell us, 
     particularly lower income students,

[[Page 14973]]

     that without the help of the Perkins Loan it is likely they 
     could not have attended Oberlin.
       Senator Portman, I urge you to support the reauthorization 
     of the Perkins Loan Program. As history has shown us, the 
     Perkins Program was one, if not the first, form of federal 
     student aid that has helped millions of students afford 
     higher education. At Oberlin, while we have a tremendous 
     institutional commitment to making college affordable through 
     our needbased grant program, we also know our students rely 
     heavily on Perkins Loans as a means to attain their 
     educational aspirations.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Marvin Krislov,
     President.
                                  ____

       Michael Bodnar: My wife and I are very concerned about 
     Congress not extending the Perkins Loan Program. With two 
     children in College and one on the way, we would not be able 
     to send them to the type of school needed to excel in this 
     world today.
       Every time we vote the political platform of higher 
     education is expressed as so important. Now we and our 
     children are faced with the possibility of losing vital money 
     needed to stay in college.
       We urge you to move forward and make sure that this program 
     is extended. Most of our friends that have children in 
     college rely on this program to help them pay their tuition.
       Mary Bodnar: My husband and I are very concerned that The 
     Federal Perkins Loan is on the verge of being discontinued.
       By not acting on this very important issue which comes due 
     on October 1st you are putting many families and College 
     students at risk of not being able to afford their higher 
     education. We have two children in college and one on the way 
     and this program is vital to us as a family. Every year it's 
     time to vote a representative into office weather it's the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate we hear how important 
     it is to educate our children.
       Please make sure that this important Federal Loan Program 
     continues. All of our friends that have children in college 
     depend on The Federal Perkins Loan Program to get their kids 
     through college.

  Mr. PORTMAN. It is not just about Ohio. It is about the entire 
country. There are 1,700 postsecondary institutions that take advantage 
of the program. Allowing it to expire is going to affect all those 
institutions and all those many thousands of students.
  Tuition is far too high. We should be making it easier--not harder--
for students to be able to pay for college. I have heard concerns from 
some of my colleagues that we shouldn't extend this and not allow a 
unanimous consent agreement to occur here because they would like to 
improve the program to make it better and even more targeted, updated, 
and modernized, and make sure the funds are allocated properly. I don't 
disagree with that at all. I agree that this program, like every other 
program in the Federal Government, could be improved. That should be 
part of our work. We should be improving these programs so they are 
more cost effective and efficient and getting to the folks who really 
need the program the most.
  While I agree we need to look at it and make changes, I don't think 
we should take this step of allowing it to expire. Why? Because, in 
effect, what we are doing there is we are saying that it is going to be 
at the expense of the students who need the aid. It should be on us. We 
should be doing our work. So I hope that we will go ahead and allow 
this extension to occur, and then let's work on those solutions. I 
think that it may be easier to have these reforms take place if we are 
not working under the gun--in other words, allowing this program to 
expire. Letting something lapse and trying to figure out how to bring 
it back is not the way the American people and the people of Ohio whom 
I represent expect Congress to work. I think we can get this done, and 
I think we can do this with the extension.
  The Department of Education already indicated to us that they may 
start to recall funding in October from colleges and universities if 
this program is not extended. By the way, not extending Perkins won't 
help with the Nation's budget problems, because, again, it is a 
revolving fund. The way it works is one loan is paid back and another 
loan is extended.
  This is the right thing to do. As we ensure that government continues 
to operate, let's ensure the Perkins Loan Program does as well.
  I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
their discussion today on this issue. I want to urge leadership on both 
sides of the aisle to focus on this issue. Let's be sure and do what 
the Senate should do along with the House. The House acted already with 
a 1-year extension. Let's simply do what the House has already done. 
Let's ensure we are providing loans to students who need them while we 
continue our efforts to reform this program and make it even stronger 
going forward.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


     James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to hopefully prick the 
conscience of the Senate to ask the Senate to honor the memory of James 
Zadroga and all of those first responders who on September 11 responded 
to a national tragedy.
  I come to the floor to achieve a goal that I and others did in 2010, 
which was then to pass the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation 
Act, and today it is to speak to reauthorize it before it expires.
  Now, Jim Zadroga was a New Jerseyan, but he was also a hero who after 
September 11, 2001, ran towards the World Trade Center--not away--to 
help us recover. But while working on the site, breathing in the smoke, 
dust, and debris, unknown to him, he was developing an illness from 
which he would never recover.
  Jim was the first emergency responder to die directly because of 
health effects from working at Ground Zero. For years we had pieces of 
legislation in Congress to right the wrong created when hundreds of 
emergency workers were left out of the World Trade Center emergency 
worker settlements. It took us 9 years to pass the original bill. Let's 
not let it expire tomorrow.
  Let's send a clear message to our first responders, those who 
responded on that fateful day and those who may be called upon to 
respond on some future fateful day, that we will never forget what they 
did for their fellow citizens, for this Nation, on the day that changed 
the world--for Jim Zadroga, who passed away, and for every other first 
responder sick because of their response to duty, some of whom have 
died and left loved ones behind.
  If you told any American 14 years ago that we would let expire our 
commitment to provide for those who helped in the 9/11 recovery effort, 
that their government would be slow to respond to their illnesses, 
their suffering, and their sacrifices, no American would believe it. 
But that is what we are on the verge of doing. That is exactly what we 
are on the verge of doing.
  We just had the September 11 commemoration. We all faithfully and 
responsibly went to remember the lives of those fellow Americans who 
were lost. We all paid tribute to them and to those who sacrificed in 
response. Yet here we are, just a few weeks after, on the verge of 
allowing to expire the very law that helps those who did their duty--
some who did beyond their duty, because they were first responders not 
even from New York City but who came from across the country to help in 
the aftermath. No American would believe that we are about to let this 
expire. That is where we are, and it must change. This law is set to 
expire at midnight tomorrow.
  Now, there is still enough funding to pay out claims for months to 
follow, but the reauthorization bill that I and other colleagues have 
cosponsored is needed now for a number of reasons. First and foremost, 
to provide the security, the peace of mind, and reassurances to those 
first responders that these critical programs will last longer than 
just what the next couple of months' funding would provide. It also 
permanently lifts the statute of limitations on the Victims 
Compensation Fund to provide for those first responders who need access 
beyond next year because we don't know what latent illness may befall 
them as a result of their sacrifice at Ground Zero.
  Very importantly, it exempts the key programs from the budget 
sequestration cuts that would hollow out the

[[Page 14974]]

critical safety net that this program provides for those September 11 
first responders. The sequestration, which I voted against, imposes 
arbitrary and capricious cuts to funding that will continue to provide 
care and support for those 9/11 heroes, who sacrificed everything to 
help those in need on that tragic day.
  The fact is, Congress must act, and this time, let's not wait for a 
public outcry before we ensure that these heroes receive the care and 
support they deserve. Last week I stood with colleagues and first 
responders to call on all of us to do what is right and honor these 
heroic men and women.
  Let's reauthorize the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation 
Reauthorization Act before it expires tomorrow. It is the least we can 
do to say thank you for the risks they took and the sacrifices they 
made. Fourteen years after the attack, we still have a profound and 
moral obligation to take care of these brave men and women, the first 
responders who risked their lives and are now suffering health effects 
as a result of their efforts.
  All of us remember that day. We remember where we were on the day 
that changed the world. We remember that it brought us closer together 
as family, as a community, one Nation indivisible. This is not a New 
York or a New Jersey issue. Nearly every State in the Nation has a 
first responder or more who ultimately will benefit from the fund 
because of an illness they have contracted or a loved one they left 
behind.
  There is a reason we call this great country the United States of 
America, because, in fact, whether there are wildfires in the West, 
flooding in the Mississippi or any other great consequence to our 
country, we take care of our own collectively. In fact, this is the 
moment to take care of those whom we have heralded as heroes. It is not 
simply enough to say so in words, but we have to do so in deeds.
  We should remember that feeling that we had on that day and 
subsequently the days afterwards and honor the heroic men and women, 
such as James Zadroga, and reauthorize the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Nominations

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in recent years we have faced a lot of 
difficulty filling positions for service to our Federal Government, not 
the least of which are critical diplomatic posts around the world. We 
have seen delays in confirming Federal judges, one of the most 
important duties of the Senate. These men and woman are chosen for life 
appointments.
  The most frustrating part of this is that virtually all of these 
nominees should be confirmed with overwhelming support. To be nominated 
by the President at the White House for an ambassadorial spot or even a 
Federal judgeship you go through a clearance process in the beginning 
for the White House to choose this person, then a background check--and 
it is a pretty extensive background check--and then eventually, if the 
White House is satisfied this person is fit for the job, with no 
obstructions to their moving forward, they send them to Congress and it 
goes through this process all over again.
  So these nominees have been vetted once, twice, three times before 
they finally reach the point where there is a vote on the nominee in a 
committee on Capitol Hill in the Senate. If they clear that vote--and 
it is a partisan vote--if they clear that vote, then they make it to 
the Executive Calendar. It takes a long time. While this is going on, 
people are sitting there in suspense as to whether they are going to be 
selected and when they finally might get a chance to serve.
  For some reason, we have seen a virtual standstill since the 
Republicans have taken control of the Senate when it comes to filling 
critical positions appointed by the President. It is time for us to 
schedule up-or-down votes on more than 27 foreign affairs and judicial 
nominees who are awaiting floor action.
  Given the foreign policy challenges we face around the world, the 
delays in considering delays for our ambassadors and other critical 
foreign policy positions is inexcusable. Many come to the floor on the 
other side of the aisle every day to criticize the President and his 
foreign policy. Yet when he asks for men and women to serve and 
represent the United States in foreign countries, they languish on the 
calendar.
  Most of the people languishing on the calendar for ambassadorial 
spots are not political, they are professional. They are men and women 
who have served our government through Democratic and Republican 
administrations, have developed a good reputation, and are now moving 
up to a new responsibility. Why in the world is the Republican majority 
refusing to allow those men and women to serve the United States? I 
don't understand it. I think it is dangerous. I think some people are 
putting politics ahead of national security.
  As of today, we have at least 11 foreign affairs nominees on the 
Senate Executive Calendar. Typically the vast majority of those 
nominees move quickly in a bipartisanship manner. However, over the 
past few years that has all changed. Everything is political now. Last 
year the Senate Republicans held up more than 30 nominees at various 
times. At least 10 of them were held over from the last Congress.
  Most astonishingly, on the Senate Executive Calendar today, at a time 
when the international community is facing a terrible conflict in 
Syria, is a professional named Gayle Smith. She is a qualified nominee 
who wishes to serve as the head of USAID, U.S. Agency for International 
Development. What does that Agency do? That Agency provides food and 
medicine to the refugees of the Syrian war. It is a big process. It has 
to be moved into countries and into refugee camps in massive amounts to 
keep innocent people--victims of this war--alive.
  Gayle Smith has been waiting for weeks, if not months, for approval. 
So what is so controversial about her? The only controversy is she was 
chosen by President Obama. She is eminently qualified. No one has 
raised any questions about her competency to do this job. She came to 
see me a week or two ago. She is anxious to serve our government, and 
the job she has to do is critically important at this moment in 
history. Yet she languishes on the Senate Executive Calendar not 
approved. So there is no nominal leader of this massive Agency which is 
responsible for the well-being of so many innocent people. There are 
another 10 just like her. In addition to this, three dozen more await 
confirmation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Many of them 
have had hearings; they just sit there. This includes people like 
Jeffrey Hawkins to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the Central African 
Republic. Now, most of us would struggle to find that on a map, but the 
fact is, that country is facing its own conflict that has displaced 
more than one-half million people. Yet the post of U.S. Ambassador to 
that country goes vacant, not because of any controversy about Jeffrey 
Hawkins but the fact that he was chosen by this President. That is it. 
That is the only complaint.
  It also includes Roberta Jacobson, who has been named as the next 
Ambassador of Mexico. Roberta is a seasoned diplomat who would be a 
great asset to a country that is our neighbor and closest among Latin 
American countries.
  It includes Daniel Rubinstein to be the next Ambassador to Tunisia, 
one of the few countries to emerge from the Arab Spring as a 
functioning democracy. In total, some of these posts have been vacant 
for more than 1 year, despite the President's efforts to fill them. 
Other nominees are supposed to replace current Ambassadors who are 
looking forward to moving to their

[[Page 14975]]

next post. They cannot do it. Why? The Senate does not want to call 
them for a vote.
  That is a decision to be made by the Republican majority. It is a 
shame our nominees, many of whom are noncontroversial, who have 
distinguished careers in the Foreign Service, languish on the Senate 
Executive Calendar for months at a time, in some cases a year. There 
used to be a spirit of bipartisanship when it came to national 
security, one that had a long and proud tradition. I hope the majority 
now will return to that proud tradition.
  We have a similar delay when it comes to judges. So far this year--
this year, and here we are in the month of September, near the end, 
coming into October--so far this year, the Republican-controlled Senate 
has held confirmation votes on six judges--six--all year. Well, you 
say, the President only has 2 years left. Maybe it is normal that you 
would not approve a judge for a lifetime appointment if he only has a 
little over a year left now. During President George W. Bush's final 2 
years in office, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed 68 judicial 
nominees--6 so far this year by the Republicans. At this point in 2007, 
the Democratic Senate had confirmed 29 of President Bush's judicial 
nominees. That is nearly five times the number that has been cleared by 
the Republican Senate, despite the fact that there is no controversy 
involving any of those nominees.
  There are 16 noncontroversial judicial nominees currently pending on 
the Senate Calendar whom we could confirm right away. Seven of these 
nominees would fill judicial emergencies. That means they are being 
sent to courthouses where the cases are stacking up and people are 
asking: When am I going to get my day in court?
  Well, you will not get your day in court until the new judge gets his 
day in the Senate. We don't know when that might happen. There is no 
reason to delay these confirmation votes. These nominees would be 
confirmed with overwhelming support. We need to put them into the 
vacancies on the Federal bench. Overall, there are 67 vacant Federal 
judgeships now, 31 of which have been designated as judicial 
emergencies. Most of those vacancies are from States where there is at 
least one Republican Senator. What that means is that nominee would not 
even be on the calendar were it not for the approval of that Republican 
Senator. So they have bipartisan support. I urge my Republican 
colleagues to work in good faith to fill these vacancies on the Federal 
bench. This is an important responsibility of the Senate. We should not 
neglect it.
  The vast majority of nominees could be confirmed today. If debate is 
needed on a few of them, so be it. If a rollcall is needed, let's have 
it. We cannot leave vacant important positions in our government and in 
our judicial system: 16 judicial nominees, 11 nominees for foreign 
affairs. We could vote on them this afternoon. Are we holding off the 
vote because we are too busy on the Senate floor? If you are following 
the Senate, you know that is not the case. It is time for us to do our 
jobs so these nominees can do theirs. For the sake of national security 
and our system of justice, let's move forward in a bipartisan fashion 
and vote on these nominees.


                          For-Profit Colleges

  Mr. President, another school year has begun. In August, I marked the 
occasion by holding a press conference outside of Argosy University. 
Don't be surprised if you have not heard the name Argosy University. It 
is a for-profit college in downtown Chicago. This for-profit college is 
part of an industry that enrolls 10 percent of all college students--
the for-profit colleges and universities--10 percent of the students. 
They take in 20 percent of all the Department of Education financial 
aid. Here is the kicker. For-profit colleges and universities account 
for 44 percent of all the student loan defaults: 10 percent of the 
students, 44 percent of the student loan defaults.
  Why does that happen? Because of several things. First, they are very 
expensive. They accept anyone--virtually anyone. Many of the students 
start going to these for-profit schools and realize they are getting 
too deep in debt and they drop out. Then they have the worst world: a 
student debt and no degree. Some of them finish the school, finish the 
course, and are given a diploma. They find out that they cannot get a 
job with it.
  When you look at the Brookings Institution's recent study of for-
profit schools, they ranked last when it comes to good-paying jobs 
after college. Then what happens? The students cannot make enough money 
to pay off their student loans and they default. That, sadly, is the 
cycle that has faced thousands of students across America. This 
industry is in trouble. It is in such trouble that many of the large 
for-profit schools are threatened and some have collapsed. The largest, 
Corinthian College, this for-profit university sent shock waves through 
the industry. They raked in profits, leaving students with mountains of 
debt, and then when they were asked to prove to the Federal Government 
that the students actually got a job after they graduated, they 
falsified the returns to the Federal Government. When they were 
challenged, they went under. They sunk.
  When they sunk, look what happened. The students who had gone to 
school there were told: Corinthian just disappeared. You no longer have 
a university. Then they learned that the courses they took could not be 
transferred to any other school except maybe another for-profit school 
somewhere. The net result of it is, the students had an option: give up 
whatever credits they had at Corinthian and walk away from their 
student loans or keep their Corinthian credits and pay their student 
loans.
  The students who walked away from their student loans, of course, 
created an obligation to Federal taxpayers who had to make up the 
difference.
  Argosy University is another one of these for-profit colleges. It is 
owned by Education Management Corporation. It is one of the companies 
that are also being looked at very carefully. Students who walk through 
Argosy's doors in Chicago or surf their ads online considering 
enrollment should know the company that runs this school, Argosy 
University, is under investigation by at least 14 different State 
attorneys general for unfair and deceptive practices.
  In 2013, the Colorado attorney general sued EDMC, which owns Argosy, 
for deceiving, misleading, and financially injuring students. The 
Colorado attorney general's investigation centered on Argosy and found 
a long, elaborate pattern of deceptive behavior by the school. That is 
not all. EDMC is also being sued by the Department of Justice under the 
Federal False Claims Act for falsely certifying compliance with 
provisions of Federal law. It turns out that they are incentivizing 
people to sign up students at their schools, these for-profit schools. 
They give them a signing bonus if they can lure some young student into 
signing up. That violates the law.
  In addition, the San Francisco city attorney found that EDMC, the 
company that runs Argosy, engaged in marketing tactics that 
underestimated program costs for students and inflated job placement 
figures. They were just flatout lying to these kids.
  According to the Department of Education, EDMC is considered ``not 
financially responsible.'' It has been placed on the Department's 
special heightened cash monitoring status.
  The company withdrew its stock from trading on NASDAQ because it no 
longer wanted to make public filings with the SEC. You see, if you make 
a public filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission and lie, 
you can go to jail, so they just withdrew their stock rather than be 
caught lying.
  In addition, in Chicago, an Argosy student seeking an associate's 
degree in business, information technology, or psychology will pay 
about $34,000 in tuition to this for-profit school. Two blocks away, 
the students at City Colleges of Chicago Harold Washington Campus are 
also getting the same degree, and the cost there is $7,000. It is 
$34,000 at Argosy and $7,000 at the City Colleges of Chicago. 
Incidentally, the hours at the City Colleges of Chicago are 
transferable to other universities and schools--not if it is Argosy.

[[Page 14976]]

  One in fifty students at the Harold Washington Campus is likely to 
default ultimately when it comes to paying their student loans; at 
Argosy, one out of seven. It is just too darn expensive, and these kids 
cannot pay back the loans.
  A recent Brookings report found that Argosy University Chicago--the 
one I visited in August--is No. 9 in the country on the list of schools 
whose students owe the most in Federal student loans. They owe a total 
of $6.2 billion--billion. In fact, of the top 25 schools on the list, 
13 are for-profit colleges and account for 10 percent of all the 
outstanding student loan debt in America.
  I want to close, as I see my colleague is on the floor seeking 
recognition. I close by using one more example: ITT Tech. It sounds 
great, doesn't it. It is No. 16 on Brookings' list. Students owe $4.6 
billion in loans. It is not surprising. An associate's degree, a 2-year 
degree at ITT Tech, costs $47,000, and the students have a one-in-five 
chance of defaulting on the loans they make at that school. Meanwhile, 
ITT Tech, which does business in Chicago--Arlington Heights, Orland 
Park, and Oak Brook--has been under investigation by at least 18 State 
attorneys general for unfair and deceptive practices, has been sued by 
the New Mexico attorney general for misrepresentation to students about 
their accreditation status and sued by the Federal Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau for predatory lending. The list just goes on.
  The point I am getting to is we are subsidizing these schools. This 
is the most heavily subsidized for-profit business in America; 80 
percent to 95 percent of their revenue comes straight from the Federal 
Treasury. If all of the money going to for-profit colleges and 
universities--think about the University of Phoenix, DeVry, Kaplan--if 
all of that money were combined, this would be the ninth largest 
Federal agency in Washington. But, instead, the CEOs who run these for-
profit companies are making a ton of money. The top man at the 
University of Phoenix--the biggest one--makes $9 million a year. How is 
that for being a college president? And some of these other ones, small 
change--$3 million a year. They get to run these for-profit schools 
while these kids stack up in debt, end up defaulting, and end with 
their lives ruined. Incidentally, defaulting on a debt means you still 
owe it to the grave. Student loan debts are not dischargeable in 
bankruptcy.
  I could go through a long list, but I hope Congress comes to its 
senses when the higher education bill comes to the floor. This rip-off, 
this scam on students and families across America, has to come to an 
end.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


         Pharmaceutical Industry and Cost of Prescription Drugs

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss one of the major crises 
facing our health care system today, and that is that the 
pharmaceutical industry itself has become a major health hazard to the 
American people. The pharmaceutical industry in this country is 
charging the American people by far the highest prices in the world for 
prescription drugs.
  The result is that one out of five Americans, including patients 
suffering from cancer who get a prescription from a doctor, is unable 
to afford to fill that prescription. This is totally absurd. The result 
is that Americans who are unable to buy the drugs that were prescribed 
to them become much sicker than they should have been, and in some 
cases they die. The result is also that people will end up in the 
emergency room or in the hospital at great expense to themselves and to 
the system because they were unable to afford the drugs that would have 
improved their health.
  As Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard 
Medical School and a former editor of the New England Journal of 
Medicine, recently wrote in the Washington Post:

       Why do drug companies charge so much? Because they can.

  Simple truth. There is not a rational economic reason for that. They 
charge outrageously high prices because nobody is stopping them in this 
country.
  The United States is the only major country on Earth--the only one--
that does not in one form or another regulate prescription drug prices. 
What that means is you could walk into the drugstore and the pharmacy 
tomorrow, and you could find that the price you are paying for a drug 
you have been using for many years has doubled, tripled, or gone up 10 
times, and the United States has chosen to be the only major country on 
Earth that does not address this issue.
  Let me give a few examples, some of which have received a good deal 
of attention recently.
  In the United States, Daraprim, a prescription drug used to treat 
patients diagnosed with cancer and AIDS, shot up in price from $18 a 
pill to $750 a pill, literally overnight, after this drug was acquired 
by a former hedge fund manager by the name of Martin Shkreli, who is 
quickly becoming the poster child for pharmaceutical greed. This same 
exact drug sells for 66 cents a pill in Britain, and Mr. Shkreli is 
charging the American people $750 for a drug used to treat patients 
with cancer and AIDS. That makes no sense to me, and it makes no sense 
to the American people.
  Last week Congressman Elijah Cummings and I sent a letter to Mr. 
Shkreli asking him to explain why the price of this drug has 
skyrocketed by over 4,000 percent. Now the good news--or it appears to 
be the good news--is that Mr. Shkreli recently said he would lower the 
price of this lifesaving drug, although he has not yet indicated what 
the new price will be. But let's be very clear--this is just one of 
many examples of price gouging within the pharmaceutical industry.
  I wish to give another example. In the United States the prescription 
drug Sovaldi, which is used to treat a very serious and widespread 
disease, Hepatitis C, costs $1,000 a pill--a thousand bucks a pill. In 
Europe, the same exact drug, made by the same exact company, costs $555 
a pill. In Egypt and India, the same drug costs $11 a pill.
  The cost of this drug has become so expensive that Medicaid and the 
Veterans' Administration--and many veterans are suffering with 
Hepatitis C--both Medicaid and the VA are rationing access to Sovaldi 
and other blockbuster Hepatitis C drugs to only the sickest patients. 
In other words, people in the United States are dying and suffering 
because they or the government programs they rely on--Medicaid or the 
VA--are simply unable to afford the outrageous prices this company is 
charging.
  According to a recent article in the Atlantic magazine, despite 
rationing Sovaldi, the State of New Mexico--and I am just using New 
Mexico as one example; this is taking place all across the country--the 
State of New Mexico will spend an estimated $140 million this year on 
that drug alone.
  I should tell you this issue first came to my attention as the former 
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee when the VA requested an 
additional $1.3 billion for that particular drug--$1.3 billion for one 
drug. This is unacceptable and it has to change.
  Last year, the pharmaceutical industry--shock of all shocks; I know 
the American people will be very surprised to hear this--the 
pharmaceutical industry spent $250 million on lobbying and campaign 
contributions, and they employed some 1,400 lobbyists. Well, that is 
what you get when you spend one-quarter of a billion dollars and you 
have 1,400 lobbyists on Capitol Hill. What you get is the ability to 
rip off the American people, to charge our people prices far higher 
than the people of any other country on Earth pay. And you have the 
three largest drug companies in this country making $45 billion in 
profit last year. So that is not a bad investment. Hey, just spread the 
money around on Capitol Hill--$250 million--throw in some campaign 
contributions, and the three largest drug companies make $45 billion in 
a year. Meanwhile, all over this country, one out of five Americans 
cannot afford to fill their prescriptions. People die. People become 
sick. State governments spend huge sums of money on these drugs because 
they are so expensive.

[[Page 14977]]

  The time has come to say loudly and clearly: Yes, the drug companies 
make a lot of campaign contributions, but maybe, just maybe, Congress 
might have the radical idea that it is more important for us to 
represent our constituents than the people who throw all kinds of money 
at us in Congress.
  It is unacceptable that total spending on medicine in the United 
States has gone up by more than 90 percent since 2002. It is 
unacceptable that the monthly cost of cancer drugs has more than 
doubled over the last 10 years to $9,900 a month. In the United States 
of America, you should not be forced into bankruptcy because you are 
diagnosed with cancer.
  It is time--in fact, the time is long overdue--for our country and 
our Congress to join the rest of the industrialized world by 
implementing prescription drug policies that work for everybody and not 
just the owners in the pharmaceutical industry. That is why I recently 
introduced legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs in 
America. That legislation is cosponsored by Senator Al Franken of 
Minnesota and was introduced in the House by Congressman Elijah 
Cummings.
  Specifically, this is what the bill would do: No. 1, it requires 
Medicare to use its bargaining power to negotiate with the prescription 
drug companies for better prices--a practice that was banned by the 
Bush administration several years ago. No. 2, this bill would allow 
individuals, pharmacists, and wholesalers to import prescription drugs 
from licensed Canadian pharmacies, where drug prices are significantly 
lower than they are in the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a comparison of the 
prices of some drugs in the United States with Canada be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 BRAND VS. BRAND
            [Manufactured by the same company at the same cost. Delivered to two different countries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           United States          Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advair Diskus
    Condition: Asthma & COPD...........................            $878.31            $212.01               -76%
Crestor
    Condition: High Cholesterol........................             608.72             160.05               -74%
Premarin
    Condition: Estrogen Therapy........................             324.99              90.00               -72%
Abilify
    Condition: Depression..............................           2,615.08             467.07               -82%
Zetia
    Condition: High Cholesterol........................             636.49             183.45               -71%
Nexium
    Condition: Heartburn...............................             682.42             228.60               -67%
Synthroid
    Condition: Hypothyroidism..........................             878.31             212.01               -76%
Januvia
    Condition: Type-2 Diabetes.........................             970.56             273.60               -72%
Celebrex
    Condition: Arthritis...............................             878.31             212.01               -76%
Diovan
    Condition: High Blood Pressure.....................             475.04             144.90               -70%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prices obtained May 19th, 2015 using average U.S. cash price for a 90 day personal supply from GoodRx.com using
  New York resident pricing and average Canadian mail-order pharmacy price.

  Mr. SANDERS. I will give a few examples. We have a drug called 
Crestor that deals with high cholesterol. Here in the United States, we 
pay $608 for a 90-day supply; in Canada $160--74 percent less in 
Canada. Premarin for estrogen therapy is $324 in the United States and 
$90 in Canada. Nexium is $682 in the United States and $228 in Canada. 
Synthroid is $878 in the United States and $212 in Canada. It is the 
same product, the same company. It is not generic. These are the same 
exact brand name products. Celebrex--a widely used drug for arthritis--
is $878 in the United States and $212 in Canada.
  What this bill would do, in addition to having Medicare negotiate 
drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry--which would substantially 
lower the prices Medicare pays--this bill would allow individuals, 
pharmacists, and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from licensed 
Canadian pharmacies, where drug prices are substantially lower than 
they are in the United States.
  I live 100 miles away from the Canadian border. In 1999, I took a 
busload of Vermonters--mostly women, many of them dealing with breast 
cancer--over the Canadian border into Montreal. As long as I live, I 
will never forget the looks on their faces when they bought the same 
medicine they were buying in Vermont, in the U.S.A., for one-tenth of 
the price--one-tenth of the price. These were working-class women who 
were struggling with breast cancer and who didn't have a whole lot of 
money. They were able to purchase the exact same medicine for 10 
percent of the price in Montreal. That makes no sense to me, and it 
only speaks to the power of the pharmaceutical industry over the 
Congress that we have Members here who vote for all kinds of free-trade 
agreements--they just love free trade. We can bring in any product we 
want from China. We can have lettuce and tomatoes coming in from farms 
in Mexico. But for some strange reason we cannot bring in brand name 
drugs from Canada. We just can't do it. We can't figure out how to do 
it. And everybody here knows what the reason is--it is the power of the 
pharmaceutical industry, their campaign donations, and their lobbying 
efforts.
  Our bill does a lot more than that. We cannot in good conscience tell 
people in our States that they must continue to pay outrageously high 
prices for prescription drugs when year after year drug companies make 
billions of dollars in profit and year after year people in our country 
get sicker and in some cases die because they can't afford the medicine 
they need.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Climate Change and Economic Growth

  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, last Friday, China announced its 
decision to implement a national cap-and-trade program beginning in 
2017. It will cover the majority of China's greenhouse gas emissions, 
including those from power generation, iron and steel production, 
cement, chemicals, and manufacturing. In creating the world's largest 
market-based program that puts a price on carbon pollution, China is 
showing that it knows that climate change and economic growth can be 
addressed at the same time.
  China stepped up on climate finance as well, matching the United 
States' contribution to the Green Climate Fund. China's announcement 
directly counters the arguments made by opponents of climate action 
here at home. The original idea was that essentially we should wait for 
China, that our actions would not make a difference

[[Page 14978]]

without China, or worse, that we would be harming our own economic 
growth while they kept burning fossil fuels.
  That argument, originally--that idea that on the challenge of our 
generation we should wait for other countries--was ridiculous on its 
face. After all, the United States must always lead. We are the 
indispensable Nation regardless of what the other countries may or may 
not be doing. But even if you subscribe to that argument, everything 
changed last week. The world is taking action around us. We are now at 
risk of being left behind, both in terms of our energy systems and our 
international standing.
  China's recent announcement to peak its coal use, reduce emissions 
from superpollutants, and now its decision to implement a cap-and-trade 
program throw the old arguments out the window.
  Those who oppose climate action have also said that addressing 
climate change would slow economic growth. Of course, we have known for 
years that this is not true. Consider the plummeting cost of clean 
energy or savings at the pump due to higher fuel economy standards, 
both of which are good for consumers and good for the climate. Now we 
have further confirmation that countries can reduce emissions without 
sacrificing economic growth.
  China obviously has no interest in putting the brakes on its growth. 
By including in its cap-and-trade program many sectors that are vital 
to its future growth, China is showing the United States and the rest 
of the world that it means business. China does not have a monopoly on 
ideas to reduce carbon pollution. In fact, most of their good ideas are 
still coming from us. The Senate has a long history of proposing 
market-based solutions to climate change, dating back to the 2003 
Climate Stewardship Act from Senators McCain and Lieberman.
  Earlier this year, Senator Whitehouse and I reintroduced our American 
Opportunity Carbon Fee Act. Our bill would impose a price on carbon 
pollution and use the revenues to cut a $500 check for all Americans, 
while lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 29 
percent. Economists from across the political spectrum agree this is 
good policy.
  Putting a price on carbon in a revenue-neutral way will provide 
numerous benefits above and beyond the significant cuts in carbon 
pollution. It will give companies the policy certainty that they need, 
and it will send a price signal to polluters. By using revenues to 
lower tax rates and provide dividends to every American, we can 
stimulate economic growth and protect the most vulnerable among us.
  Carbon pollution entails costs, but right now taxpayers are footing 
the bill. By making polluters responsible for the damage they cause and 
returning all of the revenues to individuals and employers, we will 
send a signal that innovation in clean energy and other low-carbon 
technologies will be the driving force behind the global economy of the 
21st century.
  The United States should not cede leadership in those sectors to 
China, Germany or any other country. We always lead. It is what 
Americans do best. American ingenuity led to some of the most exciting 
developments in the last century--from the airplane and the assembly 
line to the microprocessors and solar cells. With the right policies, 
we can assure American leadership for the next century as well.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________