[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2502-2513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to commend both of our leaders, 
Leader McConnell and Leader Reid, for coming to the floor and agreeing 
to a path forward to fully fund Homeland Security, and I want to speak 
for a moment about how critical this is and how really--if we cannot 
get the House of Representatives to agree, if they are not willing to 
move forward and support this path--we have actually not one shutdown 
but the possibility of two different kinds of shutdowns that will 
happen within 3 days.
  I am talking about the fact there are 3 days left before the funding 
for the Department of Homeland Security expires--on February 27, at the 
end of the day on Friday. We are in a situation where those who protect 
us from terror threats all around us will be in a situation where they 
either aren't at work or are working without pay. We will be working 
with pay but they won't be working with pay, which of course is an 
outrageous situation for us to put them in.
  Every week we know there is a new terrorist threat. That is literally 
true now, and it is shocking, as we turn on the television and we read 
the papers and listen to the radio. The most recent threat we know is 
from al-Shabaab, a Somali terrorist group with ties to Al Qaeda. A 
video appeared this last week where we know they called for an attack 
at the Mall of America near Minneapolis, as well as at other shopping 
centers in the United States and Canada and Great Britain.
  We also know that an attack on that mall would endanger as many as 
100,000 people--men, women, and children. That is how many people come 
to that mall, that big mall, every single day. Al-Shabaab terrorists 
have attacked a mall before so we know this is not an idle threat. In 
2013, they attacked the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, where 63 
innocent people were killed.
  On February 14, a shooter at a synagogue in Copenhagen killed three 
people. In late January, an American was 1 of 10 people killed in a 
terrorist attack in Libya. Earlier in January, in Paris, an attack by a 
terrorist claimed 16 lives. I could go on and on. In October alone, 
gunmen attacked the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa, killing a Canadian 
soldier.

[[Page 2503]]

  Michigan has the busiest northern border crossing in the country 
between Detroit and Windsor. Every day over $1 billion in goods and 
people are crossing that border--every single day. We actually have 
three crossings--two of the busiest in the country--and we count on 
border and Customs security. We count on our Homeland Security people 
to be on the job doing their job every single day.
  We also count on the people at the airports--all of us. Most of us 
are on planes one or two times a week. We all understand the critical 
importance of the airport. And for those of us who are surrounded by 
water, the Coast Guard is absolutely critical.
  I could go on and on with all of the ways in which the men and women 
of Homeland Security, border security, Customs, the Coast Guard, as 
well as police and firefighters, our first responders, are keeping us 
safe every single day.
  If the House does not agree to what we are doing here, in 3 days we 
will see the Department of Homeland Security shut down--an entire 
infrastructure put together after 9/11, which we all worked together on 
in a bipartisan way because we saw and we felt what had happened in 
terms of the threats to our country and the loss of lives.
  It is critical this not be just a game. This can't be just a trick, 
where we are somehow voting straight up on Homeland Security funding 
without other riders on immigration or other things where there are 
differences with the President. If it is straight-up funding, then we 
vote, and then it goes to the House and it gets completely changed 
again, that is not going to work. We are going to stand with the men 
and women who stand with us, put their lives on the line, and work hard 
every single day to keep us safe. It is critical the House decide to 
join us if in fact the Senate acts today to fully fund Homeland 
Security, which I hope we will.
  There is another thing I am deeply concerned about, and that is the 
fact we have heard a lot of people talk about we will just do a 
continuing resolution from last year. That is effectively a shutdown of 
the first responders, because when we look at the list--immigration, 
Customs enforcement, detention, antitrafficking, smuggling--of those 
things that are funded under a continuing resolution, which is a fancy 
word for last year's funding, those things don't continue.
  The new grants that keep firefighters in Michigan and across the 
country going--in Detroit alone we have 150 firefighters--were supposed 
to start in October. Because we haven't fully funded Homeland Security, 
they have been waiting. We have people who will be laid off--police 
officers, firefighters in Michigan and across the country under a CR--
under a continuing resolution. It is effectively a first responders 
shutdown.
  So that is the second shutdown I am concerned about. We could see 
Customs and Border Protection unable to award new contracts for new 
video surveillance. How many times do we talk about the need to protect 
the borders? But if we don't fully fund Homeland Security, if we do 
what it sounds like may happen from the House, some short-term funding 
from last year, we will stop first responders, we will stop 
surveillance equipment, we will stop the ability to upgrade our Coast 
Guard, and we prevent and delay contracts for police and fire.
  Also without a fully funded Homeland Security, nuclear detection 
equipment can't be replaced. That deals with our enemies trying to 
smuggle nuclear devices or dirty bombs into this country.
  And what about emergency communications? Think about the malls or 
think about things such as FEMA and the unprecedented storms and snow 
that we have seen in parts of our country, the cold.
  The idea we would somehow not fund upgrades to emergency equipment 
and effectively have a first responder shutdown is outrageous. I can't 
imagine the public, and rightly so, will understand this. I certainly 
don't understand it. We have all heard concerns about the Secret 
Service and the ability to upgrade those operations. I could go on and 
on as it relates to first responder funding.
  So I am, on the one hand, pleased that it appears we may in fact have 
a path forward to separate the debate on fully funding our Homeland 
Security, our protections at the borders and airports, and so on, as 
well as police and fire and first responders across the country from a 
debate on immigration. I appreciate the differences, and we can have 
that debate. I appreciate that has been proposed to be separated. But 
we have to make sure there are no tricks and no doublecrosses when it 
comes to the House of Representatives, because we are not going to 
support an effort to go back again and hold Homeland Security funding 
hostage to other policies and disagreements with the President.
  Finally, let me stress if the House does less than what the Senate is 
going to do on fully funding Homeland Security, they are shutting down 
first responders in this country. That is what they are doing. If we 
see a funding bill that has last year's numbers, they are putting in 
place a shutdown of our first responders in this country with threats 
all around us and new threats every day.
  People in this country deserve a lot better. We can do better than 
that. So I hope we will come together today to do the right thing: Fund 
Homeland Security fully so our police and firefighters are available 
and on the streets, and we are securing our borders and our homeland 
operations. I dearly hope the House of Representatives will step up and 
join us in getting this done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan 
has made an eloquent speech about the importance of fully funding the 
Department of Homeland Security. What is astonishing to me is that she 
didn't listen to her own speech the first time the Republican majority 
leader brought up the House-passed bill to fully fund the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Democrats blocked it; and why she didn't 
listen to that speech the second time the Republican majority leader 
brought up the House-passed bill to fully fund the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Democrats blocked it; and why she didn't 
listen to that speech the third time the Republican majority leader 
brought up the House-passed proposal to fully fund the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Democrats blocked it; and why not the fourth 
time the Republican leader brought up a bill passed by the House of 
Representatives to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security and 
the Democrats blocked it.
  This is the fifth vote to fully fund the Department of Homeland 
Security, which we want to do, and which we voted to do four times. So 
let us not confuse the issue here. I am amazed that Senate Democrats 
come up with this stuff on the other side. One would think they were 
living in a different world than we are.
  The House has passed legislation to fully fund the Department of 
Homeland Security. Senate Republicans have brought up a bill to fully 
fund the Department of Homeland Security four times. The Presiding 
Officer knows that. Four times we voted yes and four times they voted 
no. This is the fifth opportunity they will have to fully fund the 
Department of Homeland Security, and I hope we can do that.
  But let us not recreate events that never happened. Let us recognize 
the fact that for 2 weeks Senate Republicans have been prepared to 
fully fund the Department of Homeland Security and the Democrats 
themselves have blocked it not once, not twice, not three times, but 
four times.


                            Higher Education

  Now, Mr. President, if I may switch gears, I came to the floor to 
talk on another subject which fortunately has bipartisan support. I am 
glad to speak about something like that because I think the people of 
this country gave us and the Republican majority an opportunity this 
year to come to Washington and shake things up, but also get things 
done.

[[Page 2504]]

  In the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we are 
working hard to do just that with Senator Murray, the ranking Democrat 
on the committee, and just as I worked with Senator Harkin in the last 
Congress when our committee reported out 25 different pieces of 
legislation which became law. So we got things done in the last 
Congress, and I am fully confident that Senator Murray and I and the 
other members of our committee can do that in this Congress.
  That doesn't mean we agree on everything. We don't agree on a lot of 
things. If you had to pick a group of liberals and a group of 
conservatives and line them up, our committee would probably have as 
much difference as any committee in the Congress. But we also have 
about 30 percent of the jurisdiction in the Congress. That is what 
Senator Ted Kennedy used to say when he was in the Senate. And we know 
it is our responsibility to get things done.
  We are working hard on fixing No Child Left Behind. We are working 
with Secretary Burwell and the President on finding ways to move 
discoveries and devices through the National Institutes of Health and 
the Food and Drug Administration into the medicine cabinets.
  I see the Senator from Maryland on the floor. Yesterday we worked 
together to receive a report that Senator Mikulski from Maryland and I, 
Senator Bennet from Colorado, and Senator Burr from North Carolina, 
asked for 2 years ago to take a look at all the Federal regulations 
governing our 6,000 colleges and universities and give us an assessment 
of how much they cost, and how much confusion and duplication there is 
since the eight different times we have reauthorized the Higher 
Education Act of 1965. We asked how often we failed to weed the garden, 
how often we instead just dumped new laws and regulations on top of old 
ones, and to tell us exactly what to do.
  Chancellor Zeppos of Vanderbilt University and Chancellor Kirwan of 
the University System of Maryland gave us this report. Senator Mikulski 
was there, I was there, and Senator Murray, Senator Burr, and Senator 
Bennet were there. It was a very impressive report. I won't speak for 
long about it because I see the Senator from Maryland would like to 
speak, but I wish to take 5 minutes and say these things. It is 
sometimes best to tell a story to underscore a point, and here is the 
first story. Vanderbilt University hired the Boston Consulting Group to 
tell the university how much it spent complying with Federal rules and 
regulations for higher education in a single year.
  According to the Boston Consulting Group, Vanderbilt University spent 
$150 million complying with Federal rules and regulations last year. 
That is 11 percent of Vanderbilt's non-hospital expenditures. That adds 
up to about $11,000 of the tuition for each one of the 12,000 students 
at the university. It is absolutely absurd that somehow or another that 
could happen.
  A second example is the student aid form 20 million families fill out 
every year. It is 108 questions long. Our committee has been told that 
two questions would provide all the necessary information for 95 
percent of families: What is your income from two years ago and what is 
your family size? A bipartisan group of Senators have introduced a bill 
to do just that. This would save millions of hours and dollars across 
the country.
  Here is a third example. Surveys conducted by the National Academy of 
Sciences found that 42 percent of a principal investigator's time on a 
research project is spent on administrative tasks instead of research.
  I asked the head of the National Academy of Sciences what would be a 
reasonable time?
  He said about 10 percent.
  We spend 30 billion in taxpayer dollars a year on research and 
development at colleges and universities. If we could save $1 billion 
of that $30 billion by reducing that 42 percent to closer to 10 
percent, then we could fund a 1,000 more multiyear grants to 
investigate cancer research, Ebola research, and vaccines, and we 
should do that.
  This is an enormously promising report.
  Ten years ago the Senator from Maryland and I worked on a report 
called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' We asked a group of 
distinguished Americans to tell us the 20 things that we might do in 
Congress to help make our country more competitive in the world. They 
gave us the 20 things, which formed a blueprint, and we passed most of 
them and eventually funded most of them.
  So I think this report we received yesterday has the opportunity to 
be as important as ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which later 
helped establish the America COMPETES Act. It is a blueprint for how we 
can reduce overregulation, simplify rules, save money, make consumer 
protection clear, keep tuition down, find more money for research, and 
let colleges and universities spend their time and money educating 
students instead of filling out forms.
  I thank Senator Mikulski from Maryland, Senator Bennet from Colorado, 
Senator Burr from North Carolina, and my partner Senator Murray on the 
HELP Committee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my opening statement from 
yesterday's hearing, followed by pages 1 through 6 of the report 
presented to us yesterday, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Task Force on Government Regulation of Higher Education

       Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
     a copy of my remarks at the Senate Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions Committee hearing earlier this week be printed 
     in the Record.


        Task Force on Government Regulation of Higher Education

       This morning we are holding our first hearing this Congress 
     on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act which will 
     focus on the final report from the Task Force on Government 
     Regulation of Higher Education.
       Over a year ago, Vanderbilt University hired the Boston 
     Consulting Group to determine how much it costs the 
     university to comply with federal rules and regulations.
       The answer: $150 million, or 11 percent of the university's 
     total non-hospital expenditures last year.
       Vanderbilt Chancellor Nick Zeppos says that this adds about 
     $11,000 in additional tuition per year for each of the 
     university's 12,757 students.
       Each year, 20 million American families fill out a 
     complicated, 108-question form called the FAFSA (Free 
     Application for Federal Student Aid) to obtain a grant or 
     loan to help pay for college. Several experts testified 
     before our committee that just two questions would tell the 
     Department of Education 95 percent of what it needs to know 
     to determine a student's eligibility for a grant or loan: 
     One, what is your family size? And, two, what is your family 
     income?
       So, in January a bipartisan group of six Senators 
     introduced legislation to simplify the student aid 
     application and repayment process, including reducing the 
     108-question FAFSA form to just two questions. If our 
     legislation becomes law, then families, guidance counselors, 
     and admissions officers would save millions of hours.
       Most important, according to financial aid expert Mark 
     Kantrowitz, the complicated, 108-question form discourages up 
     to 2 million Americans each year from applying for aid. Last 
     fall, the president of Southwest Tennessee Community College 
     in Memphis told me that the complex form turns away from his 
     campus 1,500 students each semester.
       Tennessee has become the first state to make community 
     college tuition-free for qualifying students. But first, each 
     student must fill out the FAFSA. Now that tuition is free, 
     the principal obstacle for a qualified Tennessee student to 
     obtain two more years of education after high school is not 
     money: it is this unnecessarily complicated federal form. Ten 
     years ago, then again three years ago, surveys by the 
     National Academy of Sciences found that principal 
     investigators spend 42 percent of their time associated with 
     federal research projects on administrative tasks instead of 
     research.
       I asked the head of the National Academies what a 
     reasonable percent of time would be for a researcher to spend 
     on administrative tasks. He replied: perhaps 10 percent or 
     even less.
       How many billions could we save if we reduced the 
     administrative burden?
       Taxpayers spend more than $30 billion a year on research 
     and development at colleges and universities.
       This year, the average annual cost of an NIH research 
     project grant is $480,000. If we reduce spending on 
     unnecessary red tape by $1 billion, the an NIH could 
     potentially fund more than a thousand multi-year grants.
       These should not be excused as normal, run-of-the-mill 
     problems of government.

[[Page 2505]]

     These examples, and others like them, represent sloppy, 
     inefficient governing that wastes money, hurts students, 
     discourages productivity, and impedes research.
       Such waste should be an embarrassment to all of us in the 
     federal government.
       And let me make clear: let's not just blame President Obama 
     and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. They have contributed to 
     the problem, but so has every President and every education 
     secretary--and that includes me--since 1965 when the first 
     Higher Education Act was enacted.
       And the list of those embarrassed should also include the 
     Congress of the United States for year after year adding to 
     and tolerating a pile of conflicting, confusing regulations.
       The Higher Education Act totals nearly 1,000 pages; there 
     are over 1,000 pages in the official Code of Federal 
     Regulations devoted to higher education; and on average every 
     workday the Department of Education issues one new sub-
     regulatory guidance directive or clarification.
       No one has taken the time to ``weed the garden.''
       The result of this piling up of regulations is that one of 
     the greatest obstacles to innovation and cost consciousness 
     in higher education has become--us, the federal government.
       So if all of us created this mess, then it is up to all of 
     us to fix it.
       That is why more than a year ago, four members of this 
     committee--two Democrats and two Republicans--asked a group 
     of distinguished educators to examine the current state of 
     federal rules and regulations for colleges and universities. 
     We asked them not just to tell us the problem, but to give us 
     specific solutions.
       They have done so in a remarkable document entitled 
     ``Recalibrating Regulation of Colleges and Universities,'' in 
     which they outline 59 specific regulations, requirements and 
     areas for Congress and the Department of Education to 
     consider--listing 10 especially problematic regulations.
       I thank Vanderbilt University Chancellor Nick Zeppos and 
     University System of Maryland Chancellor Brit Kirwan for 
     leading the effort.
       In their own words, America's 6,000 colleges and 
     universities live in a ``jungle of red tape'' that is 
     expensive and confusing and unnecessary.
       The report makes clear that colleges and taxpayers expect 
     appropriate regulation. But neither taxpayers nor colleges 
     are well-served by the jungle that exists today. Consumer 
     information that is too complicated to understand is 
     worthless.
       Colleges must report the amount of foreign gifts they 
     receive; disclose the number of fires drills that occurred on 
     campus. ``Gainful employment'' disclosures require 30 
     different pieces of information for each academic program 
     subject to the regulation.
       When a student withdraws from college before a certain time 
     period, a student's federal money must be returned to the 
     government. This is a simple concept.
       Yet the regulations and guidance implementing this are 
     ridiculously complex--200 paragraphs of regulatory text 
     accompanied by 200 pages in the Federal Student Aid handbook.
       The University of Colorado reports that they have two full-
     time staff devoted to this issue. One to do the calculation 
     and the other one to recheck the other's work. Ohio State 
     University estimates that it spends around $200,000 annually 
     on compliance for this regulation.
       Institutions offering distance education are subject to an 
     additional set of bureaucracy that can result in additional 
     costs of $500,000 to a million dollars for compliance.
       All of these are examples of colleges and universities 
     spending time and money on compliance with federal rules and 
     not on students.
       Senator Murray and I will discuss how to develop a 
     bipartisan process to take full advantage of the 
     recommendations in this report and to include many of them in 
     reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which we plan to 
     do this year.
       We will schedule additional hearings to gather comment on 
     the report from institutions not directly involved with the 
     report and consumers of higher education, including parents, 
     students, and taxpayers.
       Some of the recommendations require a change in the law. 
     Many can be fixed by the Department itself.
       I have talked with Secretary Duncan more than once about 
     this effort and he is eager to do his part to solve the 
     problem. I look forward to working with him and with 
     President Obama on eliminating unnecessary red tape, saving 
     students money, and removing unnecessary regulatory obstacles 
     to innovation in the best system of higher education in the 
     world.
       This is not a new subject for me. One of the first things I 
     did as a Senator was try to simplify student aid and the Free 
     Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). And I'm told the 
     net result was the reduction of approximately 7 questions. 
     Those have been replaced by many more now.
       Although I voted against the final reauthorization of the 
     Higher Education Act of 2008, I authored a provision in the 
     bill that required the Secretary of Education to publish a 
     ``compliance calendar'' so schools can see all of their 
     deadlines.
       Unfortunately, 7 years later, the Department of Education 
     has yet to implement this provision.
       With bipartisan support and this groundbreaking report we 
     have today, I'm counting on this effort to get farther than 
     that one.
                                 ______
                                 

                           Executive Summary

       The federal government's substantial fiscal investment in 
     higher education recognizes that postsecondary education is a 
     linchpin in the nation's social and economic strength. 
     Through that support, the government helps ensure that 
     colleges and universities continue to contribute broadly to 
     the fabric of American society. To ensure prudent stewardship 
     of federal support for higher education, the Department of 
     Education is charged with developing procedures to carry out 
     laws passed by Congress in regard to higher education and 
     with overseeing institutional compliance. Institutions of 
     higher learning recognize the important role regulations play 
     in the oversight of federal investments.
       Over time, oversight of higher education by the Department 
     of Education has expanded and evolved in ways that undermine 
     the ability of colleges and universities to serve students 
     and accomplish their missions. The compliance problem is 
     exacerbated by the sheer volume of mandates--approximately 
     2,000 pages of text--and the reality that the Department of 
     Education issues official guidance to amend or clarify its 
     rules at a rate of more than one document per work day. As a 
     result, colleges and universities find themselves enmeshed in 
     a jungle of red tape, facing rules that are often confusing 
     and difficult to comply with. They must allocate resources to 
     compliance that would be better applied to student education, 
     safety, and innovation in instructional delivery. Clearly, a 
     better approach is needed.
       In 2013, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators recognized 
     that the pending reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 
     (HEA) creates an opportunity to consider these issues in 
     depth. They established a task force of college and 
     university presidents and chancellors to study federal 
     regulation of higher education broadly and identify potential 
     improvements.
       Looking at the landscape of regulation of colleges and 
     universities writ large, the Task Force on Federal Regulation 
     of Higher Education identified a number of challenges that 
     are particularly problematic. As described in Section II of 
     this report, we concluded that many rules are unnecessarily 
     voluminous and too often ambiguous, and that the cost of 
     compliance has become unreasonable. Moreover, many 
     regulations are unrelated to education, student safety, or 
     stewardship of federal funds--and others can be a barrier to 
     college access and innovation in education.
       Based on extensive discussions, consultations with experts, 
     and site visits to campuses, the Task Force identified 
     specific regulations that are of major concern to higher 
     education institutions. Section III details those concerns, 
     which include problematic financial responsibility standards, 
     confusion and inconsistency in reporting requirements for 
     campus crime, overreach in authorization of distance 
     education programs, inefficient rules concerning verification 
     of financial aid eligibility, counterproductive 
     micromanagement of the accreditation process, and policies 
     that result in consumers being inundated with information of 
     questionable value.
       The Task Force also reviewed the processes by which higher 
     education regulations are developed and implemented, and 
     offers several specific ideas for improvement. Section IV 
     outlines recommendations that include asking the Government 
     Accountability Office to review the Department of Education's 
     methodology for estimating institutional costs of compliance 
     with regulations; the creation of clear ``safe harbors'' for 
     institutional compliance; the recognition of ``good faith'' 
     efforts to comply; and several proposals for better practices 
     by the Department.
       To help policy makers think about the most effective and 
     efficient way to regulate higher education, the Task Force 
     developed the following Guiding Principles to govern the 
     development, implementation, and enforcement of regulations 
     by the Department:
       Regulations should be related to education, student safety, 
     and stewardship of federal funds.
       Regulations should be clear and comprehensible.
       Regulations should not stray from clearly stated 
     legislative intent.
       Costs and burdens of regulations should be accurately 
     estimated.
       Clear safe harbors should be created.
       The Department should recognize good faith efforts by 
     institutions.
       The Department should complete program reviews and 
     investigations in a timely manner.
       Penalties should be imposed at a level appropriate to the 
     violation.
       Disclosure requirements should focus on issues of 
     widespread interest.
       All substantive policies should be subject to the ``notice-
     and-comment'' requirements of the Administrative Procedure 
     Act.

[[Page 2506]]

       Regulations that consistently create compliance challenges 
     should be revised.
       The Department should take all necessary steps to 
     facilitate compliance by institutions.
       The Task Force believes that adherence to these principles 
     would help improve regulation of higher education, and urges 
     their adoption.
       Again, to be clear: Regulations serve an important role in 
     ensuring institutional accountability. But requirements that 
     have an excessive reach, or that are unnecessarily costly and 
     difficult to implement--or worse still, that hinder student 
     access to college and drive costs up--are counterproductive. 
     Smarter rules are needed. In the context of the forthcoming 
     reauthorization of the HEA, this report from the Task Force 
     on Federal Regulation of Higher Education proposes many 
     specific avenues to improve the regulation of higher 
     education.
                                 ______
                                 

        The Task Force on Federal Regulation of Higher Education

       The pending reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 
     (HEA) provides an opportunity for Congress to examine how 
     institutions of higher education are regulated and to 
     identify ways to streamline and simplify regulatory policies 
     and practices. With that goal in mind, a bipartisan group of 
     U.S. Senators--Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Barbara Mikulski (D-
     MD), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Michael Bennet (D-CO) created 
     the Task Force on Federal Regulation of Higher Education in 
     the fall of 2013 and directed it to consider these issues in 
     depth.
       The Senators articulated a three-part charge for the group:
       1) Provide specific recommendations to consolidate, 
     streamline, and eliminate burdensome, costly, and confusing 
     regulations, laws, and reporting requirements;
       2) Review and quantify the extent of all federal 
     requirements with which institutions must comply, including 
     estimates of the time and costs associated with specific 
     regulations; and,
       3) Provide recommendations for reform to ensure future 
     regulations are promulgated in a manner that appropriately 
     considers existing law and accurately examines the costs and 
     benefits to taxpayers, institutions, and students.
       The Senators appointed Task Force members representing 
     institutions from across all sectors of higher education, and 
     named Chancellors William E. Kirwan of the University System 
     of Maryland and Nicholas S. Zeppos of Vanderbilt University 
     (TN) as co-chairs. In addition to Chancellors Kirwan and 
     Zeppos, the Task Force includes these members:
       William L. Armstrong, President, Colorado Christian 
     University
       Bruce D. Benson, President, University of Colorado
       Molly Corbett Broad, President, American Council on 
     Education (DC)
       Thomas V. Chema, President Emeritus, Hiram College (OH)
       Margaret L. Drugovich, President, Hartwick College (NY)
       Dana G. Hoyt, President, Sam Houston State University (TX)
       Brice W. Harris, Chancellor, California Community College 
     System
       Jonathan A. Kaplan, Chief Executive Officer, Laureate 
     Online Education (MD)
       Cornelius M. Kerwin, President, American University (DC)
       J. Michael Locke, Former CEO, Rasmussen College (IL)
       Harold L. Martin Sr., Chancellor, North Carolina 
     Agricultural and Technical State University
       Claude O. Pressnell Jr., President, Tennessee Independent 
     Colleges and Universities Association
       Thomas W. Ross, President, University of North Carolina
       Robert G. Templin Jr., President, Northern Virginia 
     Community College
       In addition, the Senators asked the American Council on 
     Education (ACE) to support the work of the Task Force.


                Scope of Work and Task Force Activities

       The word ``regulation'' can be viewed broadly or narrowly. 
     Narrowly defined, federal regulation means only a requirement 
     imposed on institutions through the Code of Federal 
     Regulations, the codification of all the regulations 
     promulgated by federal agencies. Considered more broadly, it 
     means any requirement placed on colleges and universities in 
     order to participate in the federal student aid program. For 
     the purposes of this Task Force and our report, we use 
     ``regulation'' in this broader sense.
       The Task Force engaged in extensive consultations for this 
     project and solicited insights from higher education 
     associations, campus officials, and other organizations and 
     stakeholders. To gather input from individuals on campuses 
     who are responsible for implementing regulations, ACE staff 
     conducted extensive site visits and met with representatives 
     from more than 60 institutions around the country.
       Our aim was not simply to reduce the number of regulations 
     imposed by the Department of Education, but rather to foster 
     more effective and efficient rules that still meet federal 
     objectives. To that end, we sought to accomplish these goals:
       Summarize the increasing burden of federal regulation on 
     higher education.
       Identify regulations of particular concern to institutions 
     of higher education, explain why they are problematic, and 
     recommend changes to ameliorate them.
       Offer longer-term process improvements that would minimize 
     similar concerns about regulations in the future.
       Section I of this report frames the current regulatory 
     landscape for higher education. Section II describes specific 
     current challenges. Section III details 10 regulations that 
     colleges and universities find especially problematic, and 
     recommends solutions. Finally, Section IV proposes ways to 
     improve the regulatory process.
       Effective oversight can help colleges and universities keep 
     costs down, keep students safe, focus on educating students, 
     and be good stewards of federal funds. In that spirit, the 
     Task Force developed the following Guiding Principles to help 
     govern the development, implementation, and enforcement of 
     regulations by the Department:
       Regulations should be related to education, student safety, 
     and stewardship of federal funds.
       Regulations should be clear and comprehensible.
       Regulations should not stray from clearly stated 
     legislative intent.
       Costs and burdens of regulations should be accurately 
     estimated.
       Clear safe harbors should be created.
       The Department should recognize good faith efforts by 
     institutions.
       The Department should complete program reviews and 
     investigations in a timely manner.
       Penalties should be imposed at a level appropriate to the 
     violation.
       Disclosure requirements should focus on issues of 
     widespread interest.
       All substantive policies should be subject to the ``notice-
     and-comment'' requirements of the Administrative Procedure 
     Act.
       Regulations that consistently create compliance challenges 
     should be revised.
       The Department should take all necessary steps to 
     facilitate compliance by institutions.
       We believe that these principles would help improve the 
     regulation of higher education, and we urge their adoption.
       While the primary focus of this report is on requirements 
     imposed by the Department of Education, institutions of 
     higher education are also regulated by every Cabinet-level 
     agency, as well as many sub-Cabinet-level agencies. In that 
     regard, we acknowledge the important work by other groups and 
     organizations, including the National Research Council of the 
     National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Board, 
     to examine regulations stemming from other agencies, 
     particularly in connection with federally funded research.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the 
issue of funding for Homeland Security. However, I wish to note and 
acknowledge the comments just made by my colleague from Tennessee, 
Senator Alexander, the chair of the HELP Committee. I couldn't agree 
with him more.
  Hello, America. Two Senators, different parts of the country, 
different political parties, different political views on some social 
issues or whatever, but I couldn't agree more with this outstanding 
report whose original idea came from the gentleman from Tennessee.
  When we worked on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act 
about 5 years ago now, we agreed upon goals to make college more 
accessible, to make college more affordable, to always insist that that 
college offer a quality education and that students on the campus be 
safe and secure so they could be in a true learning environment.
  I am a student loan/student grant person, so I was focusing on the 
students. I taught at Loyola University in Baltimore, in the community 
college, but my colleague, who was the president of a university, said: 
We ought to look at regs. Regulation could have a tremendous impact.
  So we put our heads together. Our cochairs came from Tennessee. The 
Maryland cochair was Dr. Kirwan, a retiring but very able chancellor. 
And it is a terrific report. It is exactly what we wanted.
  Where are the regs that, No. 1, are duplicative--the same darned 
report after report, and then you do a report on the reports so that 
then they can ask you questions and ask for a followup addendum. Then 
there are also instances where the requirements are

[[Page 2507]]

contradictory. So there they are, the administrators of both the 
colleges and universities themselves or of an individual grant program. 
So we want to clarify that.
  Not only under Senator Alexander's leadership did we go for what were 
the top 10 concerns that were really burdensome, duplicative, or 
contradictory, they gave us a checklist on what would constitute 
criteria for a good reg. I think they gave us a great roadmap, and now 
it is our part to use the report. So we are not like everybody else 
where we got them to do a report and we don't do anything with it.
  When we did ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which I was so 
excited to be part of, it was truly a bipartisan effort. It led to 
legislation, and it led to other executive branch input.
  So I thank my colleague from Tennessee. I think this is the way we 
should be working together--put our heads together, get the best advice 
from what is out there in the real world, and then let's put our 
shoulders to the wheel and get it done.
  Does the Senator have a sense of when he would like to move or the 
timetable to implement this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for 
her comments and her leadership.
  I would say to the Senator from Maryland that I will need to sit down 
and talk to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, which we plan to 
do in March. My hope would be that in April we could begin five or six 
hearings aligned with the recommendations in the report, and on other 
matters such as accreditation, form working groups within our 
committee, and then by the fall move ahead with the reauthorization of 
the Higher Education Act and complete it by the end of the year.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Tennessee and look forward to 
working with him.
  Mr. President, this is the way it ought to be, where Senators come 
together and bring our best ideas. We also bring our concerns and we 
put them all on the table. But we began with civility, we began with 
respect, and we established what were agreed-upon goals and how each 
one of us thought we could get to the roadmap to do that. This is the 
way I would hope we would work.
  Now, as we come to almost a crisis with the funding for Homeland 
Security running out on Friday, this is the time for us to put our 
party differences aside, put our pet projects aside, and focus not on 
what is good for our politics but what is good for America.
  I understand that our leadership on both sides of the aisle--Senator 
McConnell and Senator Reid--have arrived now at a framework where we 
will go through a set of parliamentary procedures, which is our way, to 
then arrive at a point where we could be voting on a full year's 
funding for Homeland Security without any additional riders that could 
derail the bill placed on it. I wish to compliment the leadership for 
beginning a communication and establishing a parliamentary choreography 
where we could actually get the job done. The leaders have been working 
on this. We know they will be coming here on the floor in a few minutes 
to share with us that idea and begin the procedures where every Senator 
can exercise their will and their judgment.
  But I just want to say this as the ranking member or the vice chair 
of the Appropriations Committee: We have to fund the Department of 
Homeland Security. We just have to do it. We have to do it, and we have 
to do it now. I hope we can do it in the Senate this afternoon and that 
the House really follows what we are doing here.
  This is so crucial because of the very nature of what the bill is--
homeland security. This isn't about a new agency that might be 
duplicative of another. This isn't about new programs. It is not even 
about great big new sums of money. This Appropriations Committee 
arrived at its recommendations when we were working on the omnibus.
  The Presiding Officer is the chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security. I know that in the way he does his due diligence, he has 
reviewed this bill. So the money part I don't think is controversial 
and it actually does the job. And the job is to do the full funding to 
protect the homeland.
  I really worry about our country. Here we are, and we have ISIL 
making additional threats to the United States about the security of 
our malls. While we were all pondering what our strategy would be and 
parsing what the politics would be, our great Federal agents were on 
the scene making sure that four Americans didn't go to join ISIL to 
fight against us and perhaps organize predatory attacks against us. Our 
people are on the job, and now it is time that we do our job and fully 
fund this agency.
  America is at risk. We face terrorism. We face the consequences of 
natural disasters, which FEMA and the Coast Guard are really helping us 
with right now. We face cyber threats. We need the Department of 
Homeland Security funded in a way to prevent and respond to these 
situations.
  When I look at this, it is really standing sentry in terms of all we 
need to do in terms of port security, airport security, guarding our 
borders through our Border Patrol agents, 23,000 Border Patrol agents. 
But I also look at the first responders. If anything happens in our 
country, it is local law enforcement and local firefighters who are the 
first to respond. We have helped them with this response by providing 
them with Federal funds. I am really proud of what we have done on 
this.
  I want to speak particularly about the Fire Grant Program. Now think 
about what they do. Every day when they report to duty, our first 
responders don't know what they will face. In my own home State of 
Maryland, will they face a train derailment? We have had those. Will 
they face a Metro fire? We have had that. Will we have a multiple-
vehicle accident on 95 that could involve a horrific accident that 
requires rescue from hazardous and toxic waste? Because of who we are, 
with our airports and our seaports, we also are a big threat for a 
terrorist attack. Our first responders are asking us to give them the 
money they need to pay the bills and also help them with these 
necessities.
  Over 10 years ago I joined with one of my Republican counterparts, 
Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. We were both concerned with what was 
happening to our volunteer fire departments. As he crisscrossed 
Missouri and I crisscrossed Maryland, we were shocked to find out that 
a new firetruck could cost as much as $1 million, that wonderful SCBA 
protective gear that would be fire retardant or fire resistant could 
cost $2,000, that the special breathing apparatus that is being 
developed can cost over $5,000. When we put our heads together and 
listened to our firefighters, we realized you could not fund that on 
tip jars, pancake breakfasts, crabcake dinners, or oyster fries in my 
own State. We wanted to help them. We wanted to make sure we helped 
them so they could protect us.
  So we looked at the Fire Grant Program. It has been a tremendous 
success in my own State in the decades since we passed it. Over 600 
fire departments have been helped with the new equipment they need. 
When I travel my State, I have people who defend and protect me in my 
community shake my hand. The Presiding Officer knows what the volunteer 
firefighters do. I am sure it is the same situation in North Dakota as 
it is western Maryland. They say: You have helped me be able to do the 
job. Volunteer fire departments do all of this on their own time and on 
their own dime.
  So what happens if we don't fund Homeland Security? It means that 
those $2 billion grants for emergency firefighters, port security, for 
local efforts and so on will not be funded. Make no mistake. For those 
people perhaps in the Senate or in the House that say that we just do a 
continuing resolution, a continuing resolution means that grants cannot 
be funded.
  Under current law, for any program with an agency that is on a CR, it 
cannot issue grant money at all. So that means right now they are 
getting ready to take the Fire Grant Program proposals. Secretary Jeh 
Johnson can't

[[Page 2508]]

put out communication to say it is now the annual time for fire chiefs 
to come in with their requests.
  So we are placing America at risk--not only with the really big 
picture stuff. Often the big picture comes back home. On that terrible, 
terrible day of 9/11, who ran up into those burning buildings? Who ran 
up those steps of the World Trade Center? It was our firefighters.
  I am flinching, flagging, abashed at their heroism and their desire 
to rescue. And every day--right this minute--one of them somewhere is 
doing something. Certainly we can fund the grant program so they can 
have the truck they need, so they have the breathing apparatus they 
need, so they have the protective gear they need, so we can protect 
them while they are protecting us--rather than protecting our political 
butts. We have got to get off our butts and fund this bill.
  I look forward to the leadership on both sides of the aisle coming 
forward with a program to do it. I hope we have a sense of urgency. 
There is a saying from Tip O'Neill that ``all politics is local,'' but 
ultimately, all homeland security is local.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I appreciate our Democrat colleagues 
joining us and proceeding to the House-passed bill. I have spoken to 
the Democratic leader and my colleagues on the Republican side and 
commit to offering an amendment to the House bill to fully fund the 
Department of Homeland Security, while addressing the President's 
Executive actions on a separate adjacent track through consideration of 
the Collins bill.
  When the Senate proceeds to H.R. 240, I will offer a clean substitute 
and work to expedite consideration of the bill, as amended, to get it 
back over to the House this week. I would welcome bipartisan 
cooperation to pass the DHS funding bill as well as the commonsense 
Collins bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader and I have had very good 
discussions in the last 24 hours or so. We have agreed that, in order 
to pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill for the remainder 
of this fiscal year, the Democrats will support getting on the House 
Homeland Security funding bill. In exchange, the majority leader will 
provide that the only amendment will be a clean Homeland Security 
funding substitute, which he just outlined. The substance of this 
amendment is the same as the bill that was introduced by Senators 
Mikulski and Shaheen about a month ago.
  The Senate will adopt that amendment and send the amended bill to the 
House in an expedited fashion. The Senate will then vote on cloture on 
the motion to proceed to the Collins bill.
  Personally, I don't believe the Collins bill is a compromise. It 
would undermine law enforcement and tear families apart. So until full-
year funding for the Homeland Security Department is enacted, I will 
vote against going to the Collins bill.
  After a clean bill is signed into law, I will be happy to have a 
vigorous debate on immigration and the best way to fix our broken 
system.
  I want to be very clear that Democrats would be willing to expedite 
the plan we have before us by consent.
  In conclusion, I thank the majority leader for working with Democrats 
to come to a solution of this impasse that we have been faced with for 
the last 4 weeks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the motion to 
reconsider vote No. 53, the vote by which cloture was not invoked on 
the motion to proceed to H.R. 240.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the motion to 
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 240.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to H.R. 240, making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2015.
         Mitch McConnell, Thad Cochran, Tom Cotton, Roger F. 
           Wicker, David Vitter, Jerry Moran, Daniel Coats, 
           Michael B. Enzi, Mike Crapo, Bill Cassidy, John 
           Boozman, John Thune, Tim Scott, John Hoeven, James 
           Lankford, Jeff Sessions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 240, an act making appropriations for the 
Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2015, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close, upon 
reconsideration?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Inhofe
     Sessions
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). On this vote, the yeas are 98, 
the nays are 2.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion, upon reconsideration, is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I just want to applaud the vote we just 
had. A 98-to-2 vote shows very clearly that our colleagues in the 
Senate want to see funding for Homeland Security. Everybody understands 
that the risks to this country are too great for us not to provide the 
resources the Department needs so they can continue to do their jobs.
  We just heard that the Department of Homeland Security was involved 
with the FBI in the case of three people in Brooklyn who were 
threatening this country because they wanted to go to the Middle East 
and join ISIS. We need to make sure DHS has the funding they need. This 
is real progress. I applaud Senators McConnell and Reid for their 
efforts to get to this point.
  I hope we can continue down this road to get funding for the 
Department, and that when we send the bill

[[Page 2509]]

over to the House, the House will also work together in a bipartisan 
way to get a clean funding bill before the resources run out, before 
the money runs out for the Department of Homeland Security this Friday. 
We have a little bit of time. We need to get this done. The Senate took 
a giant step forward today to do that. I applaud my colleagues. I hope 
we can keep this going and that we can get this done very soon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Income Inequality

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I do not agree with Speaker of the House 
John Boehner on very much, but I do agree that it is an excellent idea 
for there to be a joint session of Congress in the fall to hear from 
Pope Francis. To my mind, in the last few years the Pope has played an 
extraordinary role in speaking out on issues of enormous consequence 
that impact every man, woman, and child, not just in our country but on 
the planet. He has shown great courage in raising issues that we very 
rarely discuss here in the Congress or in parliaments around the 
country.
  What I want to do briefly this afternoon is quote and discuss some of 
the statements that the Pope has made that I think we need to listen 
to. I think it is a wonderful idea that Speaker Boehner has invited the 
Pope, but I think it is important we also listen to what he has said. 
This is from Pope Francis.

       We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf 
     of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of 
     money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless 
     and lacking any truly humane goal.

  On another occasion what he says is: ``Man is not in charge today, 
money is in charge, money rules.''
  Then he says in another quote:

       Today everything comes under the laws of competition and 
     the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the 
     powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves 
     excluded and marginalized: without work, without 
     possibilities, without any means of escape.

  Then he says this on an issue that is, I think, very relevant to this 
body:

       In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-
     down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged 
     by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about 
     greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, 
     which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a 
     crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding 
     economic power and in the sacralized workings of the 
     prevailing economic system.

  Then he says:

     . . . these things become the norm: that some homeless people 
     die of cold on the streets is not news. In contrast, a ten 
     point drop on the stock markets of some cities, is a tragedy.

  In other words, when people die because they are poor and hungry and 
cold, that is not news. But a 10-point drop in the stock market becomes 
a tragedy.
  Then he says:

       We must say ``we want a just system! A system that enables 
     everyone to get on''. We must say: ``we don't want this 
     globalized economic system which does us so much harm!''

  Here we have the leader of the Catholic Church raising profound 
issues about the state of the economy--certainly not just to the United 
States but all over the world. I don't want to paraphrase him, but my 
interpretation of what he is saying is that money cannot be an end in 
itself. The function of an economic system is not just to let the 
marketplace reign and end up in a situation where a small number of 
people have incredible wealth while so many people have virtually 
nothing.
  That is true not just of the United States, but it is even more true 
around the world. We have a situation right now--incredible as it may 
sound--where the wealthiest 85 people in the world own more wealth than 
the bottom half of the world's population. So 85 phenomenally wealthy 
billionaires are here, and half of the world's population are over 
here--over 3 billion people. Does anybody in the wildest stretch of 
their imagination think this is anything close to a just world economic 
system?
  Oxfam recently told us that within the global economy within a year 
or two, the top 1 percent of the world's wealthiest people will own 
more wealth than the bottom 99 percent. What religion condones this 
type of economic disparity? What political party should condone this 
type of economic disparity?
  What the Pope is essentially saying is we need to pay attention to 
those people who are hurting--not just the homeless, not just the 
hungry, but those people who are working longer hours for low wages and 
at exactly the same time when in this country we have seen a 
proliferation of millionaires and billionaires. Is that what our 
economy is supposed to be about?
  Let me just amplify what the Pope was saying by giving you some cold 
statistics in terms of what is going on in the United States of 
America. I am not talking about the global economy. I am not talking 
about Greece, where unemployment is 25 percent and where their economy 
has contracted by a quarter in the last 6 years. I am talking about the 
American economy.
  Since 1999 the median middle-class family--that family right in the 
middle of the American economy--has seen its income go down by almost 
$5,000 after adjusting for inflation. Incredibly, that family earned 
less income last year than it did 26 years ago, back in 1989.
  Do you want to know why people in America are angry? Whether they are 
in the Occupy Wall Street movement and consider themselves progressive, 
whether they are in the tea party movement and consider themselves 
conservative, the median male worker--that man right in the middle of 
the American economy--earned $783 less last year than he did 42 years 
ago. In other words, you have seen an explosion of technological 
productivity, but the male worker in the middle of the economy--
inflation adjusted for dollars--made $783 less last year than he did 42 
years ago, while the median female worker--the woman in the middle of 
the American economy--earned $1,300 less last year than she did in 
2007.
  All over this country we are seeing men and women working longer 
hours for lower wages. We are seeing people working not one job but two 
jobs or three jobs in order to cobble together the income they need and 
maybe some health care as well. But while the middle class continues to 
disappear on a 40-year trajectory, the wealthiest people and the 
largest corporations are doing phenomenally well. The gap between the 
very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider.
  This is what the Pope means, I think, when he says this:

       While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, 
     that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results 
     from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets 
     and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control 
     to States, which are themselves charged with providing for 
     the common good.

  This is from Pope Francis. So what does he mean when he talks about 
the income of a minority increasing exponentially while the majority is 
crumbling? Let me give you some examples. I talked about male wages, 
female wages, and median family income. Let me talk about what is going 
on in the top 1 percent.
  Today the top 1 percent in America now own about 41 percent of the 
entire wealth of our country while the bottom 60 percent own less than 
2 percent. Let me repeat that. The top 1 percent own over 40 percent of 
the wealth. The bottom 60 percent own less than 2 percent. Today, 
incredibly, the top one-tenth of 1 percent now own almost as much 
wealth as the bottom 90 percent--one-tenth of 1 percent. So 16,000 
families own almost as much wealth as the bottom 300 million people in 
our country. Today the Walton family--the owners of Walmart and the 
wealthiest family in America--is now worth $153 billion. That is more 
wealth in one family than the bottom 40 percent of Americans. Over the 
past decade, the net worth of the top 400 billionaires in this country 
has doubled, up to an astronomical $1 trillion in just 10 years.
  In terms of income as opposed to wealth, almost all of the new income 
generated in recent years, since the Wall Street crash, has gone to the 
top 1 percent. In fact, the last information

[[Page 2510]]

that we have indicates that over 99 percent of all new income generated 
in this country goes to the top 1 percent.
  The top 25 hedge fund managers on Wall Street made more than $24 
billion in 2013, equivalent to the full salaries of more than 425,000 
public school teachers. What we are seeing in this country is growing 
income and wealth inequality. What we are seeing around the world is 
the same.
  What troubles me very much is that in the midst of a disappearing 
middle class, at a time when we have more people living in poverty 
today than at almost any time in recent history, I believe my 
Republican colleagues on the Budget Committee will bring forth a budget 
in the next few years which will move us in exactly the wrong 
direction. When the rich get richer, their proposal will be let's give 
more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
  When large corporations are enjoying huge profits, and major 
corporation after major corporation is paying nothing in Federal income 
tax, their proposal will be let's give more tax breaks to large 
multinational corporations.
  Then after giving tax breaks to the rich and large corporations, they 
say: Well, we want a balanced budget, and the way we are going to 
balance the budget is on the backs of a disappearing middle class, on 
the backs of millions of working families, and on the backs of the 
poorest and most vulnerable people in this country.
  This is the Robin Hood principle in reverse. This is taking from the 
poor and working people and giving it to the millionaires and 
billionaires.
  I would hope the American people say: Enough is enough. We don't need 
more tax breaks for the rich and large corporations. We don't need to 
cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition programs 
for hungry people, and Pell grants so the kids can go to college. That 
is not what we should be doing. In fact, we should be moving in exactly 
the other direction.
  From 1983 to a few years ago, what we have seen in this country is an 
incredible transfer of wealth from the bottom 90 percent to the top 1 
percent. We are talking about trillions of dollars in wealth going from 
the bottom 90 percent to the top 1 percent. Most Americans are saying: 
Enough is enough. We don't need more austerity for the middle class. We 
don't need to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Maybe it is 
time for some austerity for the top 1 percent.
  I hope when we come together to discuss the budget, Members of the 
Senate will listen to what Pope Francis has been talking about and give 
us a budget which works for the most vulnerable people in this country, 
which works for tens of millions of working families, and does not 
simply work for large campaign donors.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, somebody asked me a little while ago, 
shouldn't we be voting on the mishmash on Homeland Security that the 
House of Representatives sent over because of the immigration matters 
in it.
  I reminded them that the Senate in the last Congress voted by a 2-to-
1 margin, on a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill which we sent 
to the House of Representatives and the Speaker refused to bring the 
bill up. It probably would have passed.
  Had it passed, it would have been signed into law and President Obama 
would not have issued any Executive orders. There would be no need to. 
We had everything from border security, which Republicans and Democrats 
voted for, to minors and the DREAMers, which Republicans and Democrats 
voted for.
  In fact, we had hundreds of hours of hearings and markups. We had 
around 140 amendments that were brought up, and I would call for one 
Republican amendment and one Democratic amendment. We went back and 
forth day after day, night after night. We did 140 or 141 amendments.
  All but one of them passed by a bipartisan vote. We then had dozens 
of amendments on the floor, all of which passed with bipartisan votes. 
The final bill got 68 votes.
  We have done the work on immigration. Let's not play games and 
endanger the needed funding for the Department of Homeland Security at 
a time when we face all kinds of dangers in this country. Let's not 
close down Department of Homeland Security on a made-up mission of 
doing something for immigration.
  We passed an immigration bill. They could take out the draft of that 
old bill, vote it up, and vote it down. Sixty-eight Senators, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, voted for it. Let's bring up something 
similar. Let's have a real debate. Let's have amendments. Let's go to 
immigration. Then in the meantime, let's pass the Department of 
Homeland Security bill.
  Millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted even 
today as they prepare for a shutdown, not knowing whether these tactics 
are going to close down the Department, that major part of our 
government, or not. They have to spend the money. That is money wasted, 
to say nothing about the job that's not being done.
  I refer to my speech about Groundhog Day because we have seen this 
one. Our friends across the way in the Capitol closed down the 
government before.
  In just 2 days, unless Congress acts, the doors at the Department of 
Homeland Security, one of the country's primary national security 
agencies, will shutter. Unless we act, 30,000 workers will be 
furloughed without pay. Another 130,000 will be asked to work in 
defense of our nation's security, without pay.
  This is another needless, made-in-Washington crisis. We find 
ourselves here today because of the House's initial failure to act for 
more than a year and a half on bipartisan legislation that the Senate 
passed to help fix our broken immigration system. The House's inaction 
forced the President to do what he could through the executive 
authorities available to him. Those actions are welcomed. But they are 
not permanent, legislative fixes. Now, because Republicans in the House 
are angry that the President acted where they would not, they are 
threatening the functions of the very agency that helps protect our 
borders, our airspace, our waterways, and our communities.
  Every State in this country will be affected by a shutdown of the 
Department of Homeland Security. In the midst of a fiercely cold 
winter, when the Northeast has been devastated by life-threatening 
storms, we put at risk important recovery resources available through 
FEMA. We put at risk counterterrorism efforts and analysis of critical 
intelligence, as we continue to mount and improve our national security 
in the face of unprecedented violent threats from enemies overseas. It 
is appalling that in the face of reports that terrorists want to target 
such domestic sites as the Mall of America, some in Congress are 
playing petty politics with the vital operations of the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  A short-term continuing resolution will not solve this problem. A 
continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security 
recognizes neither the evolving threats to our Nation's security, nor 
the continuing stresses on our immigration system. A continuing 
resolution for the Department will tear immigrant families apart, 
rather than support keeping them together. A continuing resolution will 
not support an increase of $400 million for the Department. It will 
freeze FEMA resources at their current levels.
  And let's remember one key fact that I do not hear these reckless 
voices in Congress acknowledging: The funding bill we should be 
considering--the Shaheen-Mikulski bill--already is a compromise bill. 
It is far from perfect. For example, I strongly oppose the new funding 
for family detention. Incarcerating women and children fleeing violence 
runs contrary to our long history

[[Page 2511]]

as a nation that offers refuge to those most in need. Nonetheless I am 
prepared to support the bill, because it will help State and local 
communities with disaster recovery, with law enforcement activities, 
and will support our national security and counterterrorism efforts.
  The Shaheen-Mikulski bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations 
between Republicans and Democrats in both the Senate and the House. But 
for the President's executive actions in November, it would have been 
included in the omnibus spending bill that was signed into law last 
year. Now we are on the brink of a potential shutdown of the Department 
of Homeland Security. This is a fabricated crisis. The solution is 
simple. The Senate should approve the Shaheen-Mikulski bill, send it to 
the House, and end this stalemate. The House should promptly consider 
the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration legislation approved 
overwhelmingly by the Senate in 2013.
  If there is another debate to be had about fixing our immigration 
system, let's have that debate. But let's stop holding the operations 
of one of the Nation's key national security agencies captive, while 
asking tens of thousands of hardworking Americans--including more than 
2,500 Vermonters--to either work without pay or take an unpaid leave of 
absence. This is not the way to run a country. Unlike in so many other 
questions facing our country, the solution to this contrived disaster 
is easy. Members of Congress just need to have the courage to act.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise once again in support of the 
people of Ukraine in their struggle against Russian aggression. The 
most recent diplomatic efforts seem to have only emboldened President 
Putin.
  Since Minsk II, which is the last time they came to an agreement with 
reference to a ceasefire, there have been hundreds of ceasefire 
violations and the city of Debaltseve has fallen under rebel control. 
Putin's forces now threaten Mariupol, which would provide a key land 
bridge to Crimea, and his intentions are clear.
  In my view, we need to urgently increase the cost to Putin with 
tougher sanctions and by providing more security assistance to the 
Ukrainian military.
  At a press conference on February 9 with Chancellor Merkel, the 
President said that his team was considering options including the 
provision of defensive military equipment if the diplomatic effort with 
respect to Russia has failed.
  As recent events have shown, Minsk II is clearly dead, and we need to 
take a different approach.
  At so many points in history, there have been opportunities for the 
international community to deter rogue actors from violating the 
sovereignty of other countries. Unless bullies such as Putin are 
confronted, they will always bully, they will always force a response, 
and they will always be an even greater problem for their neighbors and 
the broader international community.
  Putin took Crimea, then he took Donetsk, then he took Luhansk, and 
last week he took Debaltseve. While he has paid a price because of the 
sanctions regime, that price has not changed his behavior. So now is 
the time to increase the cost to Putin. Now is the time to increase 
sanctions on Russia and work with Europe to consider additional 
sanctions in other sectors of the economy. Now is the time for the 
President to abide by his words on February 9--to provide badly needed 
defensive weapons to the Ukrainian Government and to rethink our 
strategic response to Russia's encroachment in Ukraine and across the 
former Soviet territories.
  The international community simply cannot remain passive in the face 
of such unbridled aggression that will only invite further aggression. 
So I call upon the administration to fully implement measures this body 
authorized when it passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which the 
President signed into law on December 18.
  Last month I wrote to Secretary Kerry in the wake of the bloodiest 
period since the start of this crisis. I urged the administration to 
fully implement the authorities provided in the law and to comply with 
the clear reporting deadlines.
  The legislation passed with unanimous consent in both Houses of 
Congress. It authorizes the President to provide much needed military 
and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and it imposes additional sanctions 
against Russia in this time of crisis. The legislation was necessary in 
December, and it is even more necessary today.
  We know the sanctions implemented by the United States and the 
European Union have had a tangible effect on the Russian economy. 
Combined with the decrease in global energy markets, they have put 
unprecedented pressure on President Putin. But he is undeterred. He 
continues to provide illegitimate and illegal support to separatists in 
eastern Ukraine, evidenced by OSCE and NATO reports cataloging the 
growing number of Russian troops and artillery that remain in the 
region and as evidenced by the spiking violence by so-called Russian-
backed separatists against both military troops and civilians. Russian 
troops and these so-called Russian-backed rebels have carried out 
deadly attacks on civilians in eastern Ukraine. They have killed 
scores--they have killed women, they have killed children. They have 
ignored Minsk I. They have ignored Minsk II. And now they have gained 
control of Debaltseve and have made moves towards Mariupol. This must 
end. The violence must end and the killing must stop.
  We must renew our commitment to the people of Ukraine and stand 
against Putin's blatant aggression. I appreciate the administration's 
comprehensive efforts to counter Russian aggression, but I also believe 
it is not enough. We must act immediately to influence the course of 
events on the ground and urge the President to fully implement the 
Ukraine Freedom Support Act. The violence threatening Ukraine's 
territorial integrity is threatening the region. The international 
community has an obligation to respond to Putin's clear signals that 
his intention is to escalate tensions in Ukraine and across the region.
  Since Senator Corker and I, along with other committee members, 
introduced the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, Putin has escalated his 
belligerent and aggressive tactics. NATO has deployed more than 400 
times last year to intercept Russian military flights near members' 
European airspace.
  In July of 2014, Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko was captured by 
Russian forces and is being illegally detained in Russia despite 
Russia's commitment to Minsk to free her.
  In September of last year, Russians abducted the Estonian security 
service officer Eston Kohver from Estonian territory. He was taken from 
Estonian territory to Moscow where he has been languishing in prison 
without due process.
  In October, Sweden's military discovered what it believed was a 
Russian submarine outside of Stockholm. In December, about a dozen 
Russian aircraft, including bombers, flew into the Baltic Sea region. 
In January, attacks on civilian buses took the lives of 20 Ukrainians. 
It is time for the international community to say enough is enough.
  Fully implementing the sanctions and assistance in the Ukraine 
Freedom Support Act will help restore its sovereignty, it will help 
restore its territorial integrity, and it will help deter Russia from 
further destabilizing the region.
  I urge the President to implement these measures immediately, without 
delay. That said, I understand there are individuals on the European 
Union and Canadian targeted sanctions list who do not appear on the 
American list of sanctions. Now why is this the case?

[[Page 2512]]

  Perhaps the most egregious example is Alexander Bortnikov, the head 
of the Russian FSB. Mr. Bortnikov is not on the U.S. lists in relation 
to either Ukraine or the Magnitsky act, but he is on the European Union 
and Canadian lists. To make matters worse, Mr. Bortnikov was here in 
the United States last week for President Obama's CVE conference. To 
say that I am puzzled would be an understatement.
  The fact is there are almost 150 individuals and entities on the 
Canadian and EU sanctions lists that are not on the U.S. lists. If 
there is no justifiable reason for excluding these individuals, then 
they should be added.
  Yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary 
Kerry indicated that these lists will be synced, harmonized, in the 
coming days, and I will keep a close eye on this process. Clearly, for 
the international effort to be effective, we need to be in lockstep 
with our Canadian and European allies. When we passed this legislation 
last December, it coincided with a Wall Street Journal report about the 
fortune that Russians were spending to lobby Washington against passing 
that very bill. They claimed the sanctions would affect the West's 
willingness to invest in Russia, and I say that is exactly what these 
sanctions should do.
  Putin is using his military power to impose his will in Ukraine, but 
he is also using every economic tool at his disposal, and we must do 
the same. We must make it clear to Mr. Putin that there will be 
consequences for his actions.
  This is not only obviously important in the context of Ukraine, which 
it certainly is in the first instance, but it is also about sending a 
very clear global message that if you violate and upend the 
international order, there will be consequences for doing so. Because 
in the absence of real consequences to doing so, there are other actors 
in the world who are looking at what is happening in Ukraine who will 
say, well, what did the United States, what did the West do to stop the 
aggression of Russia? And if the answer is not very much, at the end of 
the day--certainly not enough to stop that aggression--then other 
actors in the world who may be more powerful than their neighbors, who 
may have nuclear weapons in their possession, such as North Korea, will 
think about what they want to do. And whether that is China in the 
South China Sea which has had territorial disputes with our allies 
South Korea and Japan, or whether it is the challenge we have in North 
Korea of a nuclear armed North Korea, whether it is Maduro in Venezuela 
oppressing his people--I can go through a list of global actors who 
will wonder that if, at the end of the day, there isn't much 
consequence for violating the international order, then I will do what 
I wish to do because I have the power to do it without consequences. 
That is an incredibly risky world to live in.
  So I urge the President to implement our bill now. The military 
situation on the ground is clear. The Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, NATO, the Ukrainian National Security Defense 
Council, have all reported on the presence of Russian military convoys 
and troops in eastern Ukraine.
  As a matter of fact, I was there last year in the midst of the 
invasion--and I call it an invasion, because last time I checked, where 
I come from, if you have Russian troops crossing from Russia into 
another sovereign country, if you have surface-to-surface missiles, if 
you have armored vehicles and tanks and all of them are crossing 
without provocation, then you clearly have an invasion--and that has 
only mounted. You can take a soldier and take his Russian insignia off 
and put something else on, but they are still Russian soldiers coming 
into Ukraine from Russia.
  Fear is mounting in Mariupol that pro-Russian rebels with Russian 
support will conduct further attacks to ease land access to Crimea from 
Russia. If Russia gets its land access to Crimea, despite all of our 
talk that we will not forget that Crimea was taken by force illegally 
in violation of international law, Crimea is gone. If Russia continues 
down this path, its illegal occupation will be solidified and Putin 
clearly intends to continue to play his game.
  Prior to Minsk II, Oleksandr Zakharchenko, the head of the 
separatists in Donetsk, said ``there will be no ceasefires'' and that 
the separatists will not stop their attacks until they have ``reached 
the borders of the former Donetsk region.''
  He has stayed true to his word. There are no more ceasefires. He 
issued an order to ``take no prisoners,'' claiming that the separatists 
were no longer interested in prisoner swaps.
  So I say to my colleagues, the situation is dire and it is becoming 
increasingly clear we are not doing enough to change it. We must raise 
the costs to Putin and his cronies by providing Ukraine with the 
assistance it needs to defend itself. The world is watching and waiting 
and the time is now. The Ukraine Freedom Support Act explicitly 
authorizes the provision of defensive military assistance. Let's 
provide it.
  We have sent over night vision goggles, and I guess those are great 
to see the enemy, but if they can't stop the enemy, what good is that? 
What good is that?
  Let's provide anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, crew weapons, and 
ammunition. Let's provide counterartillery radar to identify and target 
artillery batteries, fire control, range finder, and optical and 
guidance control equipment. Let's provide tactical troop-operated 
surveillance drones and secure command and communications equipment.
  The administration was required to report to Congress on February 15 
regarding its plan for increasing military assistance to the Government 
of Ukraine. Ten days later, we are still waiting on this report. I urge 
the President to impose the more stringent sanctions on Russia's 
defense and energy sectors that we outlined in the law. I urge him to 
enact further sanctions on Rosoboronexport and other Russian defense 
firms that we know contribute to the instability in Ukraine, Moldova, 
Georgia, and Syria. These firms outfit pro-Russian rebels and Russian 
troops who have invaded eastern Ukraine and established illegitimate 
republics recognized by no one but President Putin. It is time to enact 
those sanctions. It is time that we put an end to the chaos and 
violence these firms spread around the world. It is time to impose 
additional targeted sanctions on the Russian energy sector to add to 
existing sanctions that are already costing the Russian economy about 
$140 billion a year, or about 7 percent of its economy.
  By imposing the energy sanctions called for in the act, the 
administration will tighten restrictions on shale deposits, arctic 
drilling, and offshore drilling.
  The Ukraine Freedom Support Act calls for the administration to 
impose sanctions on other defense industry targets as well as on 
special Russian crude oil projects by January 31. We are still waiting 
to see the administration's response.
  On September 18, Petro Poroshenko, the President of Ukraine, 
addressed a joint session of Congress. We applauded his message of 
solidarity. Now it is time to move past the applause. Now is the time 
to stand together in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. President 
Poroshenko asked for defensive arms, he asked us for aid, and he asked 
us for tougher sanctions on Russia. We all want a diplomatic solution 
to this problem, but I believe this can only come about when Putin 
believes the cost of continuing to ravage Ukraine is simply too high. 
We have a responsibility to increase that cost.
  I ask the President to heed our call and to fully exercise the 
authority granted by the Ukraine Freedom Support Act and to do it now.
  If we do that, not only do we save a key country that is presently 
bleeding--the eastern part of Ukraine is one of the most productive 
parts of the country. It is tough to keep providing financial support 
to it when it cannot openly stabilize itself because of the violence 
and the economic bleeding that goes on by virtue of the war in the 
East. This is about a country that is looking westward toward 
democracy, toward the European Union. We should

[[Page 2513]]

be helping countries that want to make that decision and have made that 
decision by themselves be able to achieve their sovereign right to do 
so. We should be sending a clear international message about not 
violating the international order, and we should be sending a clear and 
powerful message that when you do, there are repercussions.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________