[Pages S6989-S6999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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

[[Page S6990]]

and the one-half million students impacted by this program that we can
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.
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

[[Page S6991]]

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 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

[[Page S6992]]

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 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

[[Page S6993]]

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, 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

[[Page S6994]]

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 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

[[Page S6995]]

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 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

[[Page S6996]]

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.
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.

[[Page S6997]]

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.
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%

[[Page S6998]]

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 $782 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 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

[[Page S6999]]

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.

____________________