Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last December I came to the floor to discuss the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee investigation into for-profit online colleges and universities. It is an investigation that has now been going on for almost a year, and it is an investigation with profound consequences for taxpayers. For-profit colleges, mostly online, receive more than $26 billion in Federal student aid each year. While some of these schools may be doing a good job, taxpayers deserve to know that their education dollars are being well spent. It is also an investigation with profound consequences for students. According to data released last week by the Department of Education, 25 percent of for-profit college student loan borrowers default within 3 years of leaving school. One out of every four student loan borrowers who go to these for-profit schools defaults within 3 years of leaving school. For-profit colleges have correctly pointed out that they educate a disproportionate number of low-income and minority students. They argue that if they were not doing a good job, students would not continue to enroll. How, then, is it possible that schools with very high rates of withdrawal, high rates of loan debt, and high rates of default continue to enroll more and more students each year? The answer, according to my committee's investigation, lies in the enormous expenditure of money and effort that the for-profit colleges put into their recruitment process. There have been many stories about abusive recruitment practices in newspapers and television programs across the country. Last August, the Government Accountability Office documented many of those abuses in undercover videos presented at a HELP Committee hearing. The industry argued that these misleading and deceptive practices were the work of a few rogue actors, but the overwhelming evidence of misleading, deceptive, and even fraudulent conduct documented by GAO cannot be attributed to anything but a systemic effort to enroll students at any cost. For anyone who questions that this is a systemic effort to pressure, deceive, and mislead, I wish to take a few minutes to explore the details of the training practices that led directly to the GAO findings. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol find this a useful window into the training tactics used by these companies. One of the most common words in the proprietary school industry's recruiting documents is the word ``pain.'' It is not the first word that might come to one's mind if they think about enrolling in college. You might think of your son or daughter enrolling in college. You wouldn't think of ``pain'' as the first word. However, perhaps nothing worthwhile was ever accomplished without effort, so you might be thinking that schools are talking about preparing students for the hard work and the pain of excelling in college. The reality is quite the opposite. Proprietary higher education companies want to make college seem easy. The reason they are focusing on pain is to try to get students to enroll. Consider this quote from a memo written by the director of recruitment at a campus of ITT, one of the largest of the for-profit schools. After falling short of the required quota of ``starts''--that is the industry term for new students--the recruiter writes: The department needs to focus on the selling of the appointment by digging in and getting to the pain of each and every prospective student. By getting to the pain, the representatives will be able to solidify the appointments and have a better show rate for the actual conducts. Another example from an ITT document about what recruiters should do to keep students in class, reading now from one which I will include for the record, says: Remind them of what things will be like if they don't continue forward and earn their degrees. Poke the pain a bit and remind them who else is depending on them and their commitment to a better future. In their training, ITT went beyond rhetoric and created what they called a ``pain fund.'' It is probably hard to see this piece of paper. I will try to get this included in the Record. It is a picture of a funnel, and it is called the ``pain funnel and pain puzzle.'' It illustrates four levels of pain, with questions that are supposed to get progressively more hurtful to the prospective student. Level one starts off with questions such as, tell me more about that; can you be more specific; how long has it been a problem? Level two: What have you tried to do about that? What have you done to fix it? Level three pain: How do you feel about that? Then it gets down to level four. The recruiter is asking questions such as, have you given up trying to deal with the problem? A different document from ITT goes to the same levels of pain. The level four question is, once again, what are you willing to change now or have you given up trying to deal with the problem? What is the problem? The problem is, this young person is out of work. They have no future. They probably have a high school degree, maybe a D average in high school, C average at the most. They have answered an ad. The recruiter is talking to them, and they are stoking the pain. The last thing they say is, OK, what are you willing to do to change it or are you just going to give up on it? That is a question I would like to ask the executives who believe that preying on past failures is a sound method for enrolling students or a reasonable way to run a college. According to the Department of Education, 30 percent of student loan borrowers at ITT, the one I just quoted, default within 3 years of leaving school, and most of them leave before they ever get any kind of degree. They are there for a few weeks, maybe a few months, but when they drop out and when they default, ITT keeps the money. Kaplan University also encourages its recruiters to focus on pain and fear. In a page from a manual dated July 8, 2009, with side notes about ``advisor call control'' and maintaining ``rapport with PROSPECT,'' the document is similar to ITT's, with questions to ``uncover the pain and fear''--``uncover the pain and fear.'' At the bottom: ``It is all about uncovering their pain and fears,'' underlined. ``Once they are reminded of how bad things are, this will create a sense of urgency to make this change.'' Sixteen pages of sales tactics later the recruiter is taught to ``restate back word for word, the better you restate the brighter the dream.'' Another Kaplan document says, ``Keep digging until you uncover their pain, fears and dreams. . . . '' If you get the prospect to think about how tough their situation is right now and if they discuss the life they can't give their family because they don't have a degree, you will dramatically increase your chances of gaining a commitment from the student. ``Get to their emotions and you will create the urgency!'' ``Get to their emotions and you will create the urgency!'' Is that the way we ought to be enticing young people to go to school? Stoke the pain, stoke the fear? Again, according to the Department of Education, 30 percent of student loan borrowers at Kaplan default within 3 years of leaving school. And, guess what, Kaplan keeps the money. Let me cite just one more example--Corinthian Colleges. At Corinthian, recruiters are taught to convince students that their lives are bad and can be improved only by enrolling in the school. As a former recruiter, Mr. Shayler White testified in a lawsuit filed against Corinthian by ex-students: ``The ultimate goal was to essentially make [prospective students] wallow in their grief, feel that pain of having accomplished nothing in life, and then use that pain'' to pressure them to enroll. I have focused on the blatant exploitation of pain to demonstrate the terrible cynicism that pervades these companies, but the schools' recruiting documents also are ripe with misrepresentations. From a brochure for Ashford University, owned by Bridgepoint, it says it was ``established in 1918,'' a ``traditional 4-year campus with sports teams, dormitories, regionally accredited since 1950--what this means to you is that your degree will be recognized both professionally and academically.'' That is from Bridgepoint, Ashford University. Well, what it does not tell you is that up until 2005, Ashford was a small religious school with 350 students. They were purchased by Bridgepoint and renamed ``Ashford.'' So 350 students at the end of 2005, and today they have 70,000 online students, with astronomical dropout rates. And 67 percent of Bridgepoint is owned by investment bank and private equity fund Warburg Pincus. Think about that--a private equity firm owns Bridgepoint. They buy a small religious school, with 350 students. They put out these things: You can go to this school, with a great campus and all that, but you are going to school online. Now they have 70,000 students. According to the Department of Education, 21 percent of student loan borrowers at Ashford's parent company Bridgepoint default within 3 years of leaving school. That is a 17-percent increase in just 1 year. The HELP Committee has heard testimony from experts in college counseling. This testimony details the detrimental effects such overly aggressive and misleading recruitment can have on the lives of students. When students are enrolled through deception or fear, they are less prepared to meet the challenges of college. Rather than offering students a better life, these types of strong-arm, emotionally abusive tactics are all too typical of schools that have little or no interest in providing students the academic help and support they need for the students to succeed. Perhaps the attitude of these schools toward students is best exposed in a document provided by Vatterott, a privately held for-profit school. Under the heading of ``Emotion,'' it notes that: We deal with people that live in the moment and for the moment. That is whom they are going after. Their decision to start, stay in school or quit school is based more on emotion than logic. Pain is the greater motivator in the short term. Think about the schools you are familiar with in your own States, your private, nonprofit schools, some religious based, then your public schools and your universities. Are they recruiting students like this? You will not find this in any of them. They are not going after pain and fear; they are going after students to help and support them when they go through school so they can have a better life. Well, if this is the attitude--to stoke the fear and to stoke the pain--if that is the attitude of these for-profit colleges, what does it say about its students' chances for success? Is it any wonder that outcomes are appalling and defaults are skyrocketing, accounting for nearly 47 percent of all student defaults? Once again, I have to point out that the for-profit schools enroll about 10 percent of higher education students in America, but they account for 47 percent of the defaults--10 percent of the students, 47 percent of the defaults. The bottom-line finding of my committee's investigation is that, No. 1, these schools are very expensive; No. 2, they are exploitative; and No. 3, these documents show they are focused on their own success-- paying their shareholders if they are publicly held or paying back their equity investors if they are equity owned. They are not focused on the success of their students. The bottom line is that what we are confronting today with this tremendous explosion in for-profit schools, this tremendous explosion in their enrollment of students--as I said, Ashford in 2005, 350 students; today, 70,000 students--their tremendous churning of students that is going on every year--this has a striking resemblance to the subprime crisis that confronted America, a striking resemblance to the subprime crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the documents I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an alarming trend that seems to be developing on this, the first substantive legislation we are considering in this new Congress. At least three amendments have been filed--one of which has already been offered, others expected to be offered shortly--that make unnecessary and misplaced attacks on basic rights and protections for American workers. I find it deeply disturbing that in this difficult economy, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be chomping at the bit to bring American workers down a notch or two more. I don't think the safety of our skies has to come at the expense of fair wages, safe working conditions, and other basic workplace rights. I hope all Republicans in this Chamber don't share that radical viewpoint. Amendment No. 14 The first amendment I will focus on today would deny transportation security officers basic collective bargaining rights. That amendment was offered by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. Well, that is fundamentally unfair and a poor way to treat hard-working people who are on the frontlines of our effort to keep America safe. Currently, most Federal employees--including other employees at the Department of Homeland Security, such as Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs officials, and the Coast Guard--all have a voice in the decisions that affect their safety, their families, and their future. Other Federal security employees also have these protections--the right to collective bargaining--including Border Patrol agents, Capitol Police officers, Customs and Border inspection officers, and Federal Protective Service officers. That is right. All these wonderful policemen we see out here day after day, who are doing a hard job protecting us, protecting all the people who work in the Capitol and all these buildings around here, all our Capitol Police officers--guess what--have the fundamental right of being organized and collectively bargaining for their hours, wages, and conditions of employment. Do we feel any less safe because of that? Of course not. Despite working side by side with these colleagues, transportation security officers, TSOs, are denied the rights these other employees enjoy. They do not have a voice at work. They do not have statutory whistleblower protections or the right to appeal if they are subject to discrimination or unfair treatment by their supervisors. The absence of collective bargaining rights has made TSA less effective. Our transportation security officers, TSOs, have twice the average rate of injury for Federal employees. A recent Best Places to Work survey ranked TSA 220 out of 224 Federal employers, and turnover rates are among the highest for any Federal agency. Let me repeat that. Turnover rates at TSA are among the highest for any Federal agency. I submit that low morale and high turnover at a frontline security agency are a recipe for disaster, and Senator Wicker's amendment will only exacerbate the problem and make it worse. I have heard some deeply disturbing rhetoric from my Republican colleagues about the effects of granting TSOs collective bargaining rights. They say collective bargaining rights keep security workers from performing their jobs effectively. Well, these insinuations are an insult to every man and woman in uniform who works under a collective bargaining agreement across this country. To suggest that unionized workers will not do what is best for our country in the event of an emergency is scandalous. How many remember that image of 9/11--9/11--when we saw the towers come crumbling down, and we saw men and women running to escape the disaster, running away from it? Who was running into it? Our firefighters, our emergency medical teams, our police officers--all of them unionized, members of organized labor, operating under a collective bargaining agreement. Does anyone question their loyalty, their devotion to duty--many of whom lost their lives or are severely impaired for life because they did their duty--simply because they were union members? We are saying somehow they are less, they are less than others simply because they belong to a union? Also, on 9/11, Department of Defense employees, operating under a collective bargaining agreement, were required to report wherever they were told, regardless of their usual work assignments. No Federal union tried to hold up this process in any way to bargain or seek arbitration, and not one single grievance was filed to challenge the redeployments after the fact--not one. Increasing employees' voices at work has the potential to improve the functioning of our security systems. Think about this: When you travel abroad, you go through screening devices. Go to London, go to Paris, go to Luxembourg, go to Rome, go to Tokyo, go to Brisbane, go to Sydney, go anywhere around the world where they have airport screeners and-- guess what--they all work under collective bargaining agreements. The unions that represent these screeners have worked hand in hand with their governments to improve security procedures and to make our skies safer. Senator Wicker referenced a 2003 memo from the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security for the rationale for his bill. Well, currently TSA is reviewing that 2003 decision and is expected to make a determination soon about the relationship between safety and collective bargaining. I think we should defer to that agency's expertise on this issue rather than hastily approving an amendment that would limit the administration's ability to adapt. Collective bargaining, I believe, is the best way to bring dignity, consistency, and fairness to a workplace. It will make our TSO workforce more safe and stable, enhancing the security of our skies. Restoring these essential rights is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Wicker amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I will. Mr. President, I assume the chairman of the committee yields me whatever time I want to consume, and I am reserving some time also for the chairman. Here we go again. It is not the first time we have had an attack on Davis-Bacon. I am sure it will not be the last. Again, we have to get the facts out and not be led astray by misconceptions and by lack of really good data. The fact is that Davis-Bacon doesn't just create good jobs, it saves government money in Federal construction costs. Again, my friend from Kentucky has said this is going to cost more money. Well, I would like to see the studies because we have had a lot of studies on this over the years, and they show that prevailing wage laws lead to reductions in the costs and responsible contractors that pay workers at least a prevailing wage, higher productivity, and fewer safety problems. We need Davis-Bacon so that our infrastructure projects are built safely for the hundreds of millions of Americans who rely on them, because contractors that pay prevailing wages hire higher skilled and better trained workers, and they produce safer buildings, airports, bridges, roads, and tunnels. Senator Paul's amendment would undermine public safety by making it much easier for less responsible contractors to build important public infrastructure projects with shoddy construction. Congress has rejected attacks on Davis-Bacon before, going clear back to 1931. It should do so again. In the most recent vote in the Senate, in 2007, a bipartisan vote of Democrats and Republicans voted against an amendment to strip Davis-Bacon protection from funds to repair bridges. There has always been bipartisan support in this body for Davis-Bacon. In fact, we ought to read history. Senator Davis and Representative Bacon were both Republicans. It was originally a Republican bill. I hope my colleagues will recognize the value of continuing to support fair wages in these difficult economic times. This is the wrong time to start pulling the rug out from underneath our construction workers. Our fair wages that we have under Davis-Bacon are a key component of middle-class security for working families. Now is the wrong time to be attacking these essential protections. Prevailing-wage laws, such as Davis-Bacon, require that workers be paid the prevailing local wages and benefits. These laws ensure that federally supported construction projects don't undermine local labor standards. By removing these protections, Senator Paul's amendment would drive down wages, creating a dangerous race to the bottom. Again, that is the wrong approach to take in this troubled economy, the wrong approach to take for worker safety, the wrong approach to take for making sure what we build with taxpayer money is built well, with well- trained, well-motivated, and well-paid workers. We want a real recovery. These working families--construction workers who haul steel, pour concrete, build the bridges and the walls and do all these things--build the infrastructure of our country. We want to make sure they have good, family-supporting jobs, with fair wages and decent benefits. That is what Davis-Bacon is about. I urge a defeat of the Paul amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Texas, I would like to have an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I heard my friend from Tennessee--and he is my friend--talk about how this will be cheaper, it would be cheaper to build things. The new Senator from Kentucky referred to that too. Sometimes cheapest is not always the least expensive. Sometimes cheapest can turn out to be the most expensive, depending upon the quality of the work, how long these projects are, and whether they are done on time. I have a friend in Iowa who happens to be one of the largest contractors in the Midwest, if not in the entire country. He has big earth-moving equipment. He is a huge contractor. He probably does work in Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, and everyplace else. He told me once: I will only hire union labor. I asked him why. He said: Because they have a great apprenticeship and training program. Plus, he said: I know I get well-trained workers on my construction jobs. He said: I don't mind Davis-Bacon because I get apprenticeship, I get training, plus I get workers I don't have to look over their shoulders all the time. I get quality work done. He said: I didn't get big by undercutting everybody. I got big because I did good work, and I got good quality. He is able to go head to head with nonunion contractors, and he has become the largest contractor because of the quality of his work. That is why I say to my friend, sometimes the cheapest is not always the best in terms of the interest of the taxpayers and of this country. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if there is one clear message that voters sent in the last election, it is that they want Democrats and Republicans in Congress to cut out the bickering and the partisanship and to focus like a laser beam on boosting the economy, creating jobs, and reducing the deficit. So I find it absolutely astonishing that the Republicans' No. 1 priority, indeed their obsession in these opening weeks of the new Congress, is to launch bitter new partisan attacks on the new health reform law, in an attempt to repeal it in its entirety, something that would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, and add $240 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years. It would be sufficient to oppose this reckless amendment strictly on budgetary grounds. As I said, it would add $240 billion to the deficit in the first decade. Nearly $1 trillion would be added to the deficit in the second decade, if we repeal the Affordable Care Act. The sponsors of the repeal amendment have proposed no offsets whatsoever. So for all of the Republicans' crocodile tears over big budget deficits, their first action in the new Congress is to propose adding nearly $\1/4\ trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, and over $1 trillion in the second 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office is our only objective nonpartisan referee when it comes to budget projections. CBO has told us in no uncertain terms that the McConnell amendment, the repeal amendment, will add $240 billion to the deficit this decade. The Republicans' response is to attack the credibility of CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, and to claim that the hundreds of billions in budget savings, thanks to new health reform law, are based on ``gimmicks.'' That is complete nonsense. The budget savings in this new law are real. If anything, CBO has underestimated the savings that will come about, especially as a result of the robust wellness and prevention provisions in the new law, provisions that will keep Americans healthy and out of the hospital in the first place. I would simply add that if the savings in the new law were based on gimmicks, then those gimmicks would surely show up by the second decade of the law's implementation. That is the nature of gimmicks; they eventually get exposed. But the savings in the new law actually skyrocket in the second decade to nearly $1 trillion. So to wildly assert that the savings in the new health reform law are based on gimmicks is flat wrong. It is irresponsible. Let's be clear. The Republicans' obsession with repealing the new health reform law is not based on budgetary considerations, it is based strictly on ideology. They oppose the law's crackdown on abuse by health insurance companies, and they oppose any serious effort by the Federal Government to secure health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans who currently have none. We all remember William Buckley's conservative motto, sort of the father of the, I would say, modern American conservative movement. William Buckley said once that: The role of conservatives is ``to thwart history, yelling `stop.' '' In 1935 Franklin Roosevelt and the Congress passed Social Security, providing a basic retirement security for every American. Republicans fought it bitterly, and 75 years later they are still trying to undo it and privatize it. In 1965, President Johnson and the Congress passed Medicare, ensuring seniors access to decent health care. Republicans fought it bitterly, and 45 years later they are still trying to undo it and privatize it. To quote another famous Republican President: Here they go again. By the way, notice that the Republicans are no longer even pretending to offer a realistic comprehensive alternative. They used to talk about ``repeal and replace.'' Now they are just talking about ``repeal.'' As always, the Republican approach to health reform can be summed up in five words: Pray you don't get sick. So make no mistake, the fight to provide access to quality affordable health care for all Americans has only just begun, it looks like. The same ideologue who came up with the big lies about the death panels and pulling the plug on grandma are rolling out their latest campaign of misinformation. The good news is that this time around the dynamics of the debate have shifted. Just as I long predicted, as people learn more about the great things in the Affordable Care Act, the benefits and protections that are now guaranteed by law, support for health care reform is growing steadily as time goes by and people learn more about what is in it. A year ago, we were bogged down in the messy, frustrating politics of passing a bill. This time around the law is the law, and what is at stake is crystal clear: Are we going to put the health insurance companies back in the driver's seat, once again free to discriminate based on preexisting conditions, free to cancel your policy if you get sick, free to cut off payments? Are we going to revoke access to health insurance for more than 30 million Americans? Are we going to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit by wiping out all of the savings of the Affordable Care Act? Are we going to impose higher taxes on up to 4 million small businesses that are eligible for health care tax credits thanks to this new health reform law? I also want to rebut the extreme ideological attacks on the individual mandate in the new law. Republicans claim that this is somehow an assault on freedom. Let's look at it another way. It is certainly an assault on an individual American's freedoms when someone goes without insurance and they show up in the emergency room and they stick other Americans with their emergency room bill. How about that freedom? Shouldn't I be free, shouldn't you be free, from having to pay for someone because they did not have insurance and they show up at the emergency room, which is the most expensive form of health care, and now we have got to pay the bill? What about that freedom? The individual mandate is just common sense, and that is why so many Republicans supported it in the past. Senator John Chafee's reform bill in the early 1990s included an individual mandate. It was supported by a number of Republicans, some of whom are still here. Republican Senator Grassley, my colleague from Iowa, Senator Hatch, Senator Lugar, all supported that individual mandate. More recently, the original Wyden-Bennett bill--that is Senator Bennett, a Republican from Utah-- included an individual mandate. It was supported by Senators Alexander, Crapo, Corker, and Grassley. As we all know, the individual mandate was a critical piece of Republican Governor Mitch Romney's health reform in Massachusetts. As I said, it is just common sense. By eliminating free riders and putting everyone in the risk pool, we keep rates down for everyone, and it is the only way that people with preexisting conditions are not left out in the cold. So it comes down to this, as we learned--I was watching in the last few weeks the HBO series, now on DVD--about John Adams. What the early colonists finally realized is that they could enhance their freedom, they would have more freedom, if they stuck together, if they worked together, if they joined together. The same is true here in health reform. When everyone is covered and no one is left out, we enhance an individual's liberty. So health reform is all about freedom, freedom from the fear that if you get sick, you will not be able to afford a doctor; freedom from the fear that a major illness will lead to financial ruin. These are the practical freedoms that matter to Americans. I cannot tell you how many people have come up to thank me and other sponsors for passing the Affordable Care Act. They tell me how it has personally affected their families in profoundly positive ways. Let me first tell you about Sarah Posekany of Cedar Falls, IA. She was diagnosed with Crohn's disease when she was 15 years old. During her first year of college, she ran into complications from Crohn's, which forced her to drop classes in order to heal from multiple surgeries. Because she was no longer a full-time student, her parents' private insurance company terminated her coverage, and 4 years later, she found herself--are you ready for this--$180,000 in debt, and was forced to declare bankruptcy. Sarah was able to complete one semester at Hawkeye Community College but could not afford to continue. Because of her earlier bankruptcy, every bank she applied to for student loans turned her down. With the new health law, people like Sarah will be able to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are age 26. This is a real person. This is a real story. These are real people. So they want to repeal this? They want to tell Sarah: Sorry, we cannot help you any, and we cannot help other young people like you stay on their parent's policies until they are age 26. We can consider the case of Eleanor Pierce, also of Cedar Falls, IA. When her job with a local company was eliminated, she lost her health insurance. She had the option of purchasing COBRA insurance, but it was completely unaffordable. So she searched for coverage on the private individual market and was almost universally denied access because of a preexisting condition of high blood pressure. The plans that would cover her came with premiums that she could not hope to afford without an income. So Eleanor, at age 26, suffering from high blood pressure, had no choice but to go without insurance and hope for the best. ``Hope for the best'' is no substitute for regular medical care. One year later, Eleanor suffered a massive heart attack. When all was said and done, she had racked up $60,000 in medical debts. So real people, real problems, and real solutions. We need to get beyond the ideological obsession and listen to ordinary Americans, victims of the old broken sick care system. Americans have a clear message: The new law has important new benefits and protections; do not take those protections away. Nearly half of nonelderly Americans have some type of preexisting condition such as high blood pressure, arthritis, heart disease. The new law outlaws the denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions. The McConnell amendment on repeal takes that away. The largest health insurer in California used technicalities to cancel the policies of women who got breast cancer. The new law outlaws the practice of cancelling policies when people get sick. The McConnell amendment takes away that protection and restores the right of health insurers to return to that despicable practice. The new law prohibits insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. The McConnell amendment sweeps that away. The law allows parents to keep adult children on their policies until age 26, as I spoke about with Sarah. The McConnell amendment takes that away. I want to briefly mention the destructive impacts the McConnell amendment would have on my State of Iowa. One, it would raise taxes on more than 260,000 Iowans by taking away tax credits to help them purchase health care coverage. More than 8,300 young adults would lose their insurance coverage on their parents' health plans. Tens of thousands of Iowa seniors would face higher prescription drug prices and once again have to pay a copay for preventive services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms, which now they can get without a copay. And, of course, the 1.9 million Iowans with private coverage would once again be vulnerable to a whole range of abuses and discriminatory practices by the health insurance industry, like cutting you off if you get breast cancer or putting a lifetime cap on it or an annual cap. In addition, I want to mention that the new health care reform law dramatically remedies the discrimination against Iowa, my State, and a number of other States in terms of Medicare reimbursement. A little background. Under a very complicated Medicare formula, doctors in Iowa and a number of States were paid less for their services than their colleagues elsewhere for the same service. Under the formula, for example, Iowa physicians are reimbursed less than doctors in Louisiana for the same procedure. As part of the new health care reform bill, I joined with Congressman Bruce Braley, Congressman Leonard Boswell, and Congressman Dave Loebsack on the House side to negotiate a compromise that provides an immediate $800 million to address geographic disparities for both doctors and hospitals, as well as written guarantees from Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius for further action to reform Medicare reimbursement rates. This great achievement is wiped out if the McConnell amendment passes. In addition, thanks to the new law, midsized hospitals in Iowa--we call them the so-called tweeners. They are not big enough to have economies of scale. They are not small enough to be put into the small- hospital category. They are sort of in between, but they are important providers of health care to so many communities in Iowa and other States around the Nation. Well, thanks to the new law, we will see greater Medicare reimbursement to these midsized hospitals in Iowa and other States. The 2-year fix will cover fiscal years 2011 and 2012. It will aid these low-volume hospitals, some of which have struggled to keep their doors open. The fix was included in the new health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act. At the heart of the reform mission was an effort to decrease the number of uninsured and increase access--access--to affordable care. The law does just that and will ensure every Iowan access to quality health care, which these midsized community hospitals provide. Again, that goes away if the McConnell amendment prevails. We fought very hard to get that compromise to protect these tweener hospitals--wiped out by the McConnell amendment. Finally, I want to mention the many millions of Americans who will be denied health coverage if the McConnell amendment passes. The Republicans apparently reckon that middle-class Americans who already have health insurance do not care about those who are not so fortunate. I could not disagree more strongly. I believe Americans do care about the uninsured, and they are well aware of the devastating human costs of repeal. Nearly 45,000 Americans die each year in part because they do not have health insurance. With the landmark law, we are ensuring at long last that every member of our American family has access to quality, affordable health care as a right and not a privilege--as a right and not a privilege. I believe the American people, even those who have good private coverage understand--understand deep down--that it is not right in our society for 30 million Americans to go without health insurance coverage and the devastating effects it has on those individuals and their families when they do not have that health insurance coverage. So the American people are not going to allow the Republicans to take away this great humanitarian achievement. I urge my colleagues to oppose the McConnell amendment. It blows a huge hole in the budget deficit. It destroys hundreds of thousands of jobs. It repeals the Patients' Bill of Rights, allowing health insurers to return to the same old abusive and discriminatory practices. It revokes health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, let's listen to those voices of the American people who have cried out for so long--for so long--for health reform. Let's get rid of the ideological obsessions. If there are things that need to be fixed, we can fix them. I have said many times that the health reform law is not the Ten Commandments, written in stone for all eternity. It is a law. We pass laws. No laws are perfect, and sometimes you have to make changes. We make changes in laws all the time. We are about to make a change in part of the health care reform law now dealing with small businesses. Fine. These things need to be adjusted and worked on as we go ahead. They should be done in a nonideological and hopefully bipartisan fashion. But to propose that we repeal everything--everything; repeal it--makes no sense. Let's move forward to build a reformed health care system that works not only for the healthy and the wealthy but for all Americans. Mr. President, I mentioned in my remarks about how we had changed the law for Medicare reimbursement to benefit certain Iowa hospitals, and because of that, many of the hospitals in Iowa were going to get a bump up in their payments this year. I have a chart here. I did not have time to get it put on a poster. For example, St. Luke's Hospital in Cedar Rapids will get an additional payment this year of $794,841--this year. That will be taken away by the McConnell amendment, by the way. Trinity Regional Medical Center, in Webster County, will get $434,913 additional this year, taken away by the McConnell amendment. Mercy Medical Center will get $584,883, in Iowa City, taken away by the McConnell amendment. We worked hard to get these payments to help these hospitals that are under duress and not able to serve people who are in their communities. We are able to get this additional money to help them survive. Yet the McConnell amendment would take it all away. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an article by James Q. Lynch that was in the Cedar Rapids Gazette and also a chart showing the reimbursement to Iowa hospitals under our new Medicare rules for 2011 printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. HARKIN. Finally, I just say, for those of us in Iowa, in a small, rural State, with a lot of midsized hospitals, with a lot of people uninsured--and quite frankly, we are not in the upper echelons of income in the United States--for us this health care law provides immediate protections, immediate benefits, and promises even more benefits as we get to 2014 and beyond. It would be a devastating blow to my constituents in Iowa to have this health care reform bill repealed. That is why I so strenuously urge all my colleagues to oppose the McConnell amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Medicare Reimbursement Changes Will Benefit Iowa Hospitals, Doctors (By James Q. Lynch, July 1, 2010) A proposed change in Medicare reimbursement could increase payments to Corridor hospitals by more than $4 million next year. Under changes expected to be finalized later this month, reimbursement for Medicare services would increase payments to St. Luke's Hospital by $794,841 and to Mercy Medical Center by $584,883. In Iowa City, the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics could see an increase of $2.3 million in 2011 and Mercy Hospital could get a $509,898 boost. At the same time, a rule change on reimbursement to doctors could boost their Medicare payments by 5 percent beginning next year. ``This will mean a great deal to Iowa hospitals that have been struggling for many years,'' according to 1st District Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat. He is part of a group of U.S. House members who have sought to move Medicare away from payment plans that resulted in geographic disparities that ``punished health care providers in Iowa that provide high-quality care and get low reimbursement rates.''

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steven Brenner and Kirsten Abel of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, exactly 16 years ago, in January of 1995, for the first time in 8 years I found myself as a member of the minority party here in the Senate. At the beginning of that Congress, Republicans outnumbered Democrats 53 to 47; the exact same majority-to- minority ratio that exists today, just in reverse order. Yet even though I was opposed at that time to the majority party's agenda, I introduced legislation to change the Senate rules regarding the filibuster. My plan would have ensured ample debate and deliberation, which I always hear is the stated purpose of the filibuster, but would also have allowed a bill or a nominee to eventually receive a yes-or-no vote. Again, my proposal didn't pass. I first proposed this at a conference of our Democratic Senators that was held in 1994, because at that time I saw and I predicted--and it is in the Congressional Record that I had predicted this at that time-- there was an escalating use of the filibuster that was being used not for debate purposes, not just to slow things down, but to actually provide for a veto of pending legislation by the minority. I predicted, at that time, if this arms race were not nipped in the bud, it would escalate because it had been escalating since the 1980s. Democrats were in power. Republicans would have X number of filibusters, and then when the Republicans were in power, the Democrats would do the same to the Republicans. Then the Republicans would come back in power and the Democrats would do the same to them and back and forth, but each time it escalated--an escalating arms race. I predicted, at that time, if we did not do something about it, it was going to get worse. Unfortunately, my prediction became all too true. In the intervening years, because of the extraordinary use of the filibuster, the ability of our government to legislate and to address the critical problems has been severely jeopardized. Sixteen years after I first introduced my proposal, it is even more apparent that for our government to properly function, we must reform the use of the filibuster. There are those who have criticized me and argued that Senator Harkin would not be doing this if he were in the minority. Well, again, that is not true. I repeat. In 1995, when I was a member of the minority party, I first introduced my proposal. The truth is, in the future, whether the Chamber is controlled by Democrats or Republicans, I will continue to work to accomplish a couple things. One, to provide that if there is going to be a filibuster, that it is a real filibuster; that the filibuster is used to slow down processes, to give the minority ample time to debate and discuss and to amend, but in the end the majority rule must come to the Senate. I thank Senator Schumer and Senator Alexander for the effort they made to negotiate a package of badly needed reforms. Of course, eliminating secret holds is long overdue. It is wrong that not only can the minority block the majority from acting, but, too often, it does it secretly and without any public accountability. So eliminating that and eliminating the confirmations of many low-level executive branch nominees I think is meaningful movement in the right direction. While I fully support these steps, they are far from the meaningful reforms that I think are essential to make the Senate a properly functioning legislative body. Keep in mind, we are a legislative body. The filibuster was once an extraordinary tool, used in the rarest of instances. Across the entire 19th century, there were only 23 filibusters. From 1917, when the Senate first adopted rules on this until 1969, there were fewer than 50 in that whole timespan--less than one a year. During the 104th Congress, in 1995, when I first introduced my resolution, there were 82 filibusters. But it was not until the 110th and 111th Congresses that the abuse of the filibuster would spin wildly out of control. In the 110th Congress, there were an astonishing 139 motions to end filibusters. In the 111th Congress just ended, there were 136. That is 275 filibusters in just over 4 years. It has spun out of control. This is not just a cold statistic of 275 filibusters. It means the filibuster, instead of a rare tool to slow things down, has become an everyday weapon of obstruction, of veto. On almost a daily basis, one Senator is able to use just the threat of a filibuster to stop bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment, let alone a final vote. In the last Congress, the filibuster was used to kill many pieces of legislation that enjoyed majority and often bipartisan support. The reality is, because of the way the filibuster is abused today, the minority--the minority--has unchecked veto power over public policy. When I say minority, I do not say Republicans, I say the minority. It could be the Democrats, it could be the Republicans. Think about this. We are a legislative body, elected by the voters of this country every 6 years to legislate, to pass legislation with the House, to send it to the President or to defeat legislation, one way or the other, through our votes. But it would seem to me that reason alone--reason alone--would suffice to say that legislation should be able to be passed with a majority vote. But that is not what has happened in the Senate. The power to pass legislation has been given to the minority. Reason alone would dictate there is something inherently wrong and inherently unconstitutional about this. As James Madison noted when rejecting a supermajority requirement to pass legislation, here is what James Madison said: ``It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' Unfortunately, Madison's prediction has come true. We are the only democratic body in the world--and I challenge anyone, I challenge anyone, to contradict me on this with proof--we are the only democratic body in the world where the minority, not the majority, controls. In today's Senate, democracy, of which we all claim to be such strong supporters, democracy is turned on its head. The minority rules; the majority is blocked. The majority has responsibility and accountability but lacks the power to govern. The minority has power but lacks accountability or responsibility. This means, as we have seen recently, that the minority can block bills that would improve the economy, create jobs, and then turn around and blame the majority for not fixing the economy. The minority can block popular legislation, then accuse the majority of being ineffective. Again, I wish to note that when I refer to the minority, I am not saying Republicans, I am saying the minority. Both parties have abused the filibuster in the past and both will, absent real reform, abuse the filibuster in the future. Although Republicans are currently in the minority, there is no question that control of this body will change again at some point, as it always does periodically. Some have argued that filibuster reform is nothing more than a ``power grab'' by a Democratic Senator reacting to the recent elections in which his party lost seats. I have heard that said. Well, it is true it is now harder for either party to obtain the 60 votes needed to pass legislation. But I wish to make clear that the reforms I advocate are not about one party or one agenda gaining an unfair advantage, it is about the Senate, as an institution, operating more fairly, effectively, and democratically. I wish to repeat, I first introduced this in 1995 when I was in the minority. So as we say in law school, in the court of equity, I come with clean hands. The truth is, as it is situated right now with Republicans controlling the House, any final legislation will need to be bipartisan, with or without a filibuster. Let me also say, again, that for a bill to become law, it has to be passed by the House and the Senate in the same form--in the same form. Then it must go to the President. The President can veto it and then it takes a two-thirds vote to override a veto. There are a lot of checks and balances out there. So the need for the check on legislation by the minority with the ultimate power to veto that is not needed--not needed; in fact, inimical to a democratic institution. It was former majority leader Bill Frist who said, when he normally shut down the body over the use of filibusters to block a handful of judges, again by Democrats, ``This filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority.'' Further, I wish to make it clear it is not those of us who seek reform who are engaged in a power grab. It is those who insist on hanging on to an antiquated rule who are grabbing for power. It is those who have taken an extraordinary tool, once used sparingly, to ensure ample debate and deliberation and turned it into a monstrosity, destroying the power of the majority to govern, turning over effective control of the Senate to the party that failed to elect a majority of Senators. That is the real power grab. That is the real power grab. Moreover, despite the dire predictions of opponents of reform, filibuster reform does not mean the end of minority rights in the Senate. Senators of all parties will continue to have ample time to make arguments, attempt to persuade the public or a majority of their colleagues. The reform proposals that are being considered fully protect the rights of the minority to full and vigorous debate and deliberation, maintaining the hallmark of the Senate. Presently, Republicans have stated the filibusters were necessary because Democrats employed a procedural maneuver to deprive them of the right to offer amendments, the so-called filling of the tree. Well, notwithstanding the rejoinder that Republican abuse amendments, such as offering amendments totally unrelated to the pending matter--and there again this is where you get into the chicken and egg, who did it first to whom? Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to the argument that the minority ought to have the right to be able to offer amendments. That is why I have included in my resolution guaranteed rights to offer germane amendments--germane amendments, not an amendment dealing with something totally unrelated to the legislation on the floor--to offer legitimate, germane amendments which the minority feels would improve or change, to the minority's liking, whatever legislation, amendment or bill might be on the floor. Too many people, I believe, confuse minority rights with minority winning. Having the right to debate and to deliberate and to offer amendments does not mean you have the right to get your way. Being allowed to vote on your amendment does not mean you have a right to win the vote. The minority does not deserve the right to prevail in every instance. The minority obviously can convince some of the majority to join them. Then they become the majority on a given issue or given amendment. That used to happen all the time around here. There is nothing wrong with that. But the minority, I submit, does not deserve the right, under our Constitution, nor under any reasonable interpretation of a Democratic legislative body--they do not have the right to systematically block action by the majority and to veto, to have veto power, over what can even be considered on the floor of the Senate. The fact is, provided that the minority is vested with ample protections, as it is in my proposal, at the end of ample debate, the majority should be allowed to act. What is so radical? What is so strange about the notion that in a legislative body, the peoples' representatives should vote up or down on legislation or a nominee? As Senator Henry Cabot Lodge stated many years ago: ``To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile.'' I think at the heart of this debate is a central question that we are not coming to grips with. Do we truly believe in democracy? Do we truly believe the issues of public policy should be decided at the ballot box and not by the manipulation of archaic procedural rules? I think the truth is, both parties appear to be afraid of majority rule, afraid of allowing a majority of Senators to work their will. At its heart, those who hang on to this outdated rule, those who vigorously oppose the majority having the ability to govern fear the American people. They fear that the people's choices and wishes will be translated into action here in Washington. The central question for this body is clear: Do we or do we not believe in democracy and majority rule? Elections should have consequences. After ample protections for minority rights, the majority party in the Senate, whether Democratic or Republican, duly elected by the American people, should be allowed to carry out their agenda and be allowed to govern. Should I be opposed to reform of the filibuster because I am afraid Republicans someday will become the majority party in the Senate and proceed to enact their agenda? No. I believe in democracy for Republicans and Democrats alike. I believe in majority rule for Republicans and Democrats alike. The distinguished minority leader said recently in regard to this proposal that Democrats ought to be concerned because a couple years from now Republicans might take over this place and would be able to undo a lot of the things we did--fear that somehow the Republicans will get the majority and be able to enact their agenda. I say to my friends, God bless them. If they win the election and become the majority party, they ought to govern. What are the checks and balances? We don't know whether the President will be a Democrat or a Republican. We don't know what the House is going to be. There are still a lot of internal checks and balances in the committee structure. The minority, under my proposal, can still slow things down. I read in the paper that one Senator said it ought to be the right of the minority to slow things down. I believe that. I believe that in the Senate the minority ought to have the right to slow things down. That is why my proposal provides for that. There is ample opportunity to slow things down, throw some sand in the gearbox of the majority. But in my proposal, at the end of a period of time of 8 days, the majority can govern. So one can slow it down--slow down everything, every amendment, every bill--so compromise negotiations would still go on. I hear from my side: What if the tea party gains a majority in the Senate? We will need to filibuster to stop them. I say to my friends on this side and others, it is a sad day in America when the only way we can stop the tea party or any other extreme group is through subterfuge, through filibusters, secret holds, and parliamentary trickery. We have to have a fundamental confidence in democracy and the good sense of the American people. We have to have confidence in our ability to make our case to the American people and to prevail at the ballot box. We must not be afraid of the American people. We must not be afraid of how they cast their votes or for whom. I am not afraid of the will of the people expressed at the ballot box. That is what sent me to this Chamber. I should note, that used to be the operating principle of this body, but over the years, especially recently, it has become grossly distorted. We all have our views on the recent election and what the American people said. Everybody has a view on that. I will say what my view is. The American people spoke loudly that they are fed up and angry with Washington, with government, and with Congress. They want change, and they want an end to the dysfunction in this city. In too many critical areas--job creation, energy, the economy--people see a Congress that is unable to respond effectively to the urgent challenges of our time. My proposal is basically the same as I offered 16 years ago. It would amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to permit a decreasing majority of Senators over a period of 8 days to invoke cloture on a given matter. A determined minority could slow things down for 8 days. Senators would have ample time to make arguments and attempt to persuade the public and a majority of their colleagues. This protects the right of the minority to full and vigorous debate and deliberation, again maintaining the hallmark of the Senate. At the end of ample debate, however, there would be an up-or-down vote on an amendment, a bill, a nominee. My proposal would restore a basic and essential principle of representative democracy: majority rule in a legislative body. I also think there is another advantage--that it would lead to greater compromise. Many have argued that it is the filibuster that forces compromise and collaboration. I disagree. The fact is, right now the minority has no real incentive to compromise. Why should they if they can totally block something and then go out and campaign on a message that the majority just couldn't get anything done? Again, the minority has a great deal of power but zero incentive on compromise. I believe my proposal would encourage a more robust spirit of compromise. If the minority knows that at the end of the day, at the end of 8 days, 51 votes will be enough to bring a bill to the floor or to end debate on an amendment or a nominee, it seems they would be more willing to come to the table and compromise. And for the majority, the reason to compromise is because for the majority party in the Senate-- either one, Democratic or Republican--one of the most valuable things is time, allocation of time. The majority always wants to save time. So rather than chew up 8 days on a nominee or an amendment, the majority would like to get it done in a day or so. The minority, knowing that at the end of 8 days, 51 votes can pass something, will say: Maybe we ought to compromise now and get what we can out of it without dragging it out 8 days. Right now, there is literally zero incentive to compromise. I also strongly encourage colleagues to support the talking filibuster proposal of Senator Merkley. They claim it is about silencing the minority. The fact is, the filibuster has nothing to do with debate and deliberation. It is used to prevent consideration. Rather than serve to ensure the representation of minority views and to foster deliberation, the minority uses the filibuster to prevent debate and deliberation. The filibuster has been used to defeat bills and nominees without their receiving a discussion on the floor. So the world's greatest deliberative body has now become the world's greatest nondeliberative body. I think a ``yes'' vote today on a vote for reform, for change, and for a government that can effectively address our Nation's challenges is a vote to move ahead. It is a vote for progress--or we can vote for continued gridlock, continued obstruction, and broken government. This body does not function the way it is supposed to. To be sure, the Founders put in place a system of checks and balances that makes it enormously difficult to enact legislation. It must pass both Houses of Congress. It has to go through committees first. It must pass both Houses of Congress, go to a conference committee, then it goes to the President. He can veto it. And then it can be challenged in court. All are very significant checks. I often hear opponents of reform claim that what I am proposing would turn the Senate into the House of Representatives because at the end of 8 days, 51 votes could move something. I ask my friends: When did the Senate become defined by Senate rule XXII, which is the filibuster rule? I thought the Senate was defined in the Constitution. Rule XXII, the filibuster rule, is not the essence of the Senate. Regardless, the Senate will continue to be totally different from the House. We have two Senators from small States, two Senators from large States. We are elected every 6 years. We have sole jurisdiction over treaties, impeachments. And the Senate operates, as we know, in so many instances based on unanimous consent. That will continue. So the power of one single Senator remains to object to any unanimous consent request. Eliminating the filibuster will not change the basic nature of this body, nor the constitutional structure of the Senate. For most of the Senate's history, there were very few filibusters--at most one or two a year. Can someone suggest that the Senate of Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, Lyndon Johnson, Everett Dirksen, that that Senate was the same as the House of Representatives? Even in my short time here--26 years--we used to have amendments on the floor that we would debate and vote, and if you got 51 votes, you won. We don't do that anymore. Under the present structure of the Senate, under the present rule XXII, the way it is being used today, every measure that passes the Senate must have 60 votes. Whatever happened to the idea of majority rule? Now one has to have 60 votes. I have heard some say that if we have to have 60 votes, this encourages compromise to get to the 60 votes. I am all for compromise. I have brought a lot of legislation to the floor in my time here, and some has been adopted 100 to nothing. Farm bills, appropriations bills, others that I have brought to the floor, both in the majority party and in the minority party as the ranking member on a committee--and we didn't need 60 votes. If someone offered an amendment, they had the right to offer an amendment and get 51 or 52 or 53 votes and win. I have never stood at that desk, either as a committee chair or as ranking member, and insisted that a bill we had on the floor had to have 60 votes in order to pass. But that is what has happened in the Senate now. Some say that promotes compromise. Anyone who has a bill or an amendment wants to get the most votes possible, right? They want to get more votes. That is the nature of legislation. But sometimes there is a bill or an amendment that does not lend itself to easy compromise. It may be contentious. We may have to take a hard vote. Maybe it only gets 51 votes. Should that amendment go down to failure because it got 51 or 52 or 53 or 54 or 55 or 58 or 59 votes? Go out and explain that to the American people. Go to the next townhall meeting and say: No matter what happens, you can't pass anything with 51 votes. You have to have 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. That gives the minority the right to veto anything. See how people react to that. When they understand it, they say: That is nuts. We all stand for election every 6 years. If we only get 52 percent of the vote, maybe we shouldn't be here because obviously there was no consensus among the people who voted for us that we should represent them if we didn't get 60 percent of the vote. Is that what is coming, that we have to have 60 percent of the vote to even serve in the Senate? I know I am taking it to its extreme. I know no one is suggesting that. But boiled down to its essence, what we are saying is, without adopting reform of the filibuster, yes, we as a U.S. Senate believe a minority has the right to veto anything in this Senate. I would much rather be on the side that says the minority has a right to slow things down, the minority has the right to debate, the minority has the right to amend, and the minority has a right to win those amendments with 51 votes. But a minority should not have the right to veto and stop legislation. That is what my proposal does: adequate time for debate, adequate time for amendments, ensuring that the minority can offer an amendment, but, in the end, the majority would rule. It was never intended--never, never intended--that a supermajority of 60 votes would be needed to enact any piece of legislation, any amendment, or confirm a nominee. Indeed, the Framers of our Constitution were very clear about where a supermajority was required. There were only five to the original Constitution: ratification of a treaty, overriding a veto, votes of impeachment, passage of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a Member. It may come as a shock to many people, but the filibuster is not in the Constitution of the United States. In fact, historically, the first Senate, when it met, included a rule that permitted the majority to end debate and bring a measure to a vote with a majority. It was called ``invoking the previous question.'' But they had the right to do that. It was done away with by Aaron Burr, then-Vice President of the United States. We know what happened to him. But that was done away with. So the Senate embarked upon a little over 100 years of having no rules. But, then again, the Senate did not do much. They really did not do much. However, in the 21st century, as a major superpower, with things happening with lightning speed around the world, we have to be able to react a little bit more rapidly than how we reacted in the 19th century. Moreover, reform of filibuster rules stands squarely within a tradition of updating Senate rules as needed to foster an effective government that can respond to the challenges of the day. The Senate has adopted rules that forbid the filibuster in numerous circumstances, such as war powers and the budget. Think about that. For some reason, the Senate, at some point in time, said you cannot filibuster the budget. Imagine that. You can filibuster other things, but you cannot filibuster the budget. How about war powers? What could be more important than whether or not we go to war? It is a power granted to the Congress by the Constitution, but you cannot filibuster it. Think about that. So we have rules that forbid the filibuster. We have passed four significant reforms of the filibuster since 1917. Today, unfortunately, it has become abundantly clear that we cannot govern a 21st-century superpower when a minority of 41 Senators can dictate action or inaction to a majority of the Senate and a majority of the American people--a majority of the American people. We had a bill here last year; it was called the DISCLOSE Act. The House passed it twice overwhelmingly. They sent it to the Senate. Now, what did the DISCLOSE Act say? All it did is say the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, that allowed corporate money to be funneled into campaigns to defeat or support an opponent and did not have to be accounted for, did not have to be made public. Many people suspected there was foreign money coming in through various sources to influence campaigns in the United States because they did not have to report it. So the bill came through that did not overturn the Supreme Court decision. It just said: If you are going to do this, you have to disclose where you got the money. It passed the House. Polls showed it was supported by well over 80 percent of the people, a majority of Republicans and Democrats around the country. It came to the Senate twice. It got 59 votes. Why isn't it law today? Because you need 60 votes--60 votes. Go back and explain that at your town meetings. Go back and tell them: We don't have that today. We don't have that sunshine law because we need 60 votes, even though we got 59. This is not the kind of representative democracy the Founders envisioned. It is not the kind of representative democracy that our sons and daughters have fought and died for for over 200 years. How many of our young men and women in uniform today--risking their lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, around the globe--how many of them know they are risking their lives for minority rule--for minority rule, not majority rule--minority rule? Very few, I submit. Very few. It is time to end the paralysis, the drift, and the decline in the Senate. Yes, let's commit ourselves to debate and deliberation. There is nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with extended debate. There is nothing wrong with having compromises. There comes a time when maybe a compromise is not in the cards. But should that mean we cannot vote on it, I say to my friends? Should that mean if we cannot get 60 votes, we do not even deserve to have 51 or 52 or 53 votes? Is that what we are saying? I have heard my friends on the other side--I think I heard; I do not know exactly who it was today--say: Well, the 60 votes promotes compromise. I am all for that. But what if we cannot get the compromise, I say? Then are we saying we cannot have a vote because we cannot get 60 votes? That is, in essence, what they are saying. It is not the bedrock of democratic principle to deny the majority to rule, to finally have a vote. So there may be a lot of misinterpretations of the amendment I am offering: Oh, it is going to make us like the House. Nonsense. It is going to take away minority rights. Nonsense. It is going to take away the right of the minority to slow things down. Nonsense. What my amendment does is it says, finally, at some point in time, we are going to exercise our constitutional obligation. I will close on this: Every 6 years we have an election and we go down here and hold up our right hand and we swear an oath. We swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I submit we are not living up to our oath of office in terms of bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution when, on the other hand, we enact rules that deny the majority the right to govern-- when we deny the majority the right to govern. So I say every Senator has a lot of power here. The power of a Senator comes not from what we can do but from what we can stop. I have often said that is kind of the dirty little secret of the Senate. Well, I think it is time for each of us to give up a little bit of our power, to give up a little bit of our power for the good of the country, to give up a little bit of our power of being able to stop something in order that the majority--whomever that majority may be-- can carry out their agenda on behalf of the American people. I do not fear--I do not fear--the voters. I do not fear the ballot box. What I fear is this Senate will continue to be dysfunctional, it will not be able to act, we will continue to drift, we will not be able to respond to the exigencies of our time, the American people will get more and more frustrated and disappointed in the workings of our government, and the end result will be a decline in America. Look, I am not Pollyannaish. I know none of these proposals will succeed. It takes 67 votes, they say, to change the rules of the Senate. I believe that is inherently unconstitutional. Can one Congress bind another? Can one Congress bind all future Congresses? Can one Senate bind all future Senates? Can one Senate in a moment of time say we need 90 votes to pass anything here because 90 Members happen to be of one party, so they enact a rule and they say we have to have 90 votes to change any rule, knowing it will probably never happen again? As Senator Byrd said one time--I know he is being quoted a lot around here today and when it comes to these debates--we should not be bound by the dead hand of the past--the dead hand of the past. I believe it is the inherent right of the Senate to change its rules by a majority vote at the beginning of any Congress. That is what it says in the Constitution. Each House shall make its rules. It does not say each House makes its rules and every succeeding House must abide by those rules. It does not say that. So I think we are left with a situation where the Senate--where the Senate--cannot live up to its constitutional obligation. I think it is almost inherently impossible for the Senate to do so. Therefore, I think we must now have to look to the courts to provide some relief in this matter, just as the Supreme Court decided in Baker v. Carr that legislatures could not reapportion themselves. So, therefore, they found it unconstitutional. I, quite frankly, think a case can be made to the courts that the Senate rules, as they are now applied with the 67-vote threshold, prevent me, a Senator from Iowa, prevent a Senator from Georgia, prevent a Senator from Oregon from fulfilling his or her constitutional obligations to their constituents, to the people who elected them, to try to get legislation passed on a majority basis. So, like I said, I am not Pollyannaish. I know where the votes are today. I do not know--I know my proposal will not get many votes. It did not get many in 1995 either. And people say: Well, Harkin, why are you doing this? Why do you do it when you know you do not get many votes? I do it because I believe in it. I believe with all my heart and all my soul that the Senate is not operating constitutionally right now. So I feel this fight must continue. As I said, I now come to that point in time where I believe that perhaps we must look to the courts for their decision on whether the Senate is capable of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities and obligations. So I hope we do not have to go there. I hope we could adopt some of these reforms, such as the Merkley amendment or my proposal. Quite frankly, at the essence of it is the proposal by the Senator from New Mexico. That is the heart of it. Can a majority of the Senate change its rules at the beginning of a Senate? I believe it is constitutionally not only permissible, but I think we are obligated by the Constitution every 2 years to adopt the rules of the Senate by a majority vote and not by 67 votes. So I close my part of the debate by appealing to the conscience of our Senators to think about majority rule, think about the rights of the minority but think about the rights of the American people to have their voices heard here by a majority vote and not by a supermajority. I believe that is our constitutional obligation. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is the same resolution I offered 16 years ago. I continue to offer it. If you believe the minority ought to have the right to slow things down, that is fine. But if you believe the minority should have the right to veto anything that comes on the floor, you don't want to vote for my resolution. What my resolution says is that basically you need 60 votes. Then, if you don't get it, 3 days later you have another vote, it would be 57 votes; 3 days later, 54 votes; after 8 days, 51 votes could move a nominee, an amendment, or a bill. So it gives the minority the right to slow things down, the right to amend, the right to debate, the right to make their voices heard, but in the end it gives the majority the right to move legislation. We are a legislative body. The majority ought to have the right to move legislation. The minority should not have the right to veto. Right now in the Senate you have to have 60 votes to pass anything. We used to be able to bring up amendments here and get 51 or 52 votes and pass it. That no longer happens. If you believe in democracy, trust the American people, trust the ballot box. I am not afraid. I am not afraid of the majority enacting its will as long as I have the right to debate an amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Danielle Holliday and Megan Culligan of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is a student of the Constitution. We have all looked at it. We know what it says. I mentioned earlier about the fact that when we come in here, we take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That is our oath of office, to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Is it the Senator's view that perhaps the way the Senate is constructed right now may in some way--I just throw this out--take away my constitutional right to adequately represent my constituents? If it takes a supermajority or if we cannot even change the rules, as the Senator has pointed out, does not this kind of take away some of the constitutional rights and obligations, obligations of a Senator, I ask the Senator?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his response on that.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question on that point?

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield for an observation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act, also known as the HeLP America Act, will improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by emphasizing prevention, wellness, and health promotion in our communities, workplaces and schools. We made a significant investment in prevention and wellness as part of the passing of the historic Affordable Care Act into law. The robust array of provisions contained in the HeLP America Act continue to build off the investments made by the Affordable Care Act and together, they will significantly transform our current sick care system into a true health care system. Make no mistake about it; these combined efforts will continue our transformation into a genuine wellness society by keeping people from developing chronic diseases and from costly hospitalizations in the first place. Currently, the United States spends more than $2 trillion on health care each year but historically we invest just four cents out of every dollar in prevention and public health--let me repeat that--just four cents out of every dollar is invested in prevention and public health. This is pennies despite all the research that shows that prevention and public health can effectively reduce health care spending. This is why I fought for the Prevention and Public Health Fund that is included in the health reform law. But transforming our Nation into a true wellness society requires a comprehensive approach to make being healthier easier for all Americans. It just doesn't make any sense why we don't put a greater emphasis on making health promotion easier--why would we focus so little on prevention and public health when we know that these initiatives can make us healthier and reduce our annual health care spending? Well, I am proud that the bill before the Senate continues to make significant investments in prevention and wellness. The HeLP America Act will put additional systems into place that will improve access to nutritious foods, opportunities for physical activity, and affordability of recommended preventive services. The bill focuses on initiatives to make kids and schools healthier. In particular, it will support State efforts to provide resources to child care providers to help them meet high-quality physical activity and healthy eating standards. It also directs the Department of Education to provide guidance and technical assistance to schools to provide equal opportunities for students with disabilities for physical education and extracurricular athletics. In addition, the bill focuses on initiatives to make healthier communities and workplaces. For example, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish guidelines in physical activity for children under the age of 5 and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grant program promoting and expanding efforts to create community gardens. Specific to small businesses and workplace wellness programs, there is a provision that allows employers to deduct the cost of athletic facility memberships for their employees and exempts this benefit as taxable income for employees. The HeLP America Act also creates systems that give Americans the information they need to make informed decisions. In particular, there is a provision that requires uniform guidelines be developed for the use of nutrient labeling symbols or systems on the front of food packages. There are provisions meant to strengthen federal initiatives to improve the health literacy of consumers by making health information easier to understand and health care systems easier to navigate. Let me be clear, this bill doesn't just tinker around the edges; it changes the very paradigm of a variety of systems to make it easier for Americans to be healthy. After many years of advocating for wellness and prevention, I am thrilled to see that these things were at the very heart of the historic Affordable Care Act passed into law. But there is still much more to be done, and the HeLP America Act is an important step in continuing our transformation into a genuine wellness society and getting health care costs under control. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the great importance of expanding the production and availability of biofuels, and the significant impact that biofuels continue to have on reducing our overall consumption of petroleum in the United States. Our national energy situation continues to deteriorate. Because we import 60 percent of the petroleum we consume, our economy faces a constant threat from volatile petroleum prices as well as significant amounts of American wealth being transferred to foreign producers. Because more than two-thirds of our petroleum supply is consumed by our transportation sector, we can improve this situation by expanding the production and use of alternatives to petroleum-derived fuels. Domestic biofuels have been by far our most successful alternative. Biofuels already displace close to 10 percent of our gasoline supplies, and they have the potential to make significantly larger contributions in the years ahead. Expanding domestic biofuels production and use also will support economic recovery by creating jobs in the areas of feedstock production and delivery, fuels processing in bio refineries, and biofuels marketing. The American people understand the need to reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum supplies. Congress has expressed broad agreement on two fundamental approaches--increasing efficiency of vehicles and increasing use of alternative fuels. We mandated more efficient vehicles by passing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. That bill mandates a brisk expansion of biofuels production under the Renewable Fuels Standard. However, biofuels currently are facing critical market barriers. The most common form of biofuel, ethanol, can only be used as a 10 percent blend with gasoline in most highway vehicles. To enable much larger production and use levels, we need to expand the number of flex-fuel vehicles that can use higher blends, and we need to expand the number of filling stations selling those higher blends. We also need to enable safer and more economical transport of higher volumes by supporting development of biofuel pipelines. To these ends, I am proud today to introduce the Biofuels Market Expansion Act of 2011. This measure would require that at least 90 percent of new auto sales in the United States be flex fuel vehicles by 2016. It would also require major fuel distributers, those owning or branding more than 50 gasoline filling stations, to install increasing numbers of blender pumps at their retail filling stations, and it would authorize funding to support blender pump installations by smaller filling station operators. Finally, this measure would authorize guarantees for loans covering 80 percent of renewable fuel pipeline project costs. The requirements and assistance authorized in this bill will ensure that the number of flex-fuel automobiles and the availability of alternative fuels are expanding in tandem with the production and use of biofuels in our national fuel supply over the next 8 years and beyond. This is a job-creating bill that reduces American dependence on foreign petroleum by giving Americans the option of choosing clean, domestically-produced fuels for their personal transportation needs in the future. These steps represent critical components in the transition of our energy systems away from fossil and imported fuels toward the benefits of greater reliance on sustainable domestic fuel sources. Today, I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I urge Senators' support for this bill and its rapid enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the great importance of expanding the production and availability of biofuels, and the significant impact that biofuels continue to have on reducing our overall consumption of petroleum in the United States. Our national energy situation continues to deteriorate. Because we import 60 percent of the petroleum we consume, our economy faces a constant threat from volatile petroleum prices as well as significant amounts of American wealth being transferred to foreign producers. Because more than two-thirds of our petroleum supply is consumed by our transportation sector, we can improve this situation by expanding the production and use of alternatives to petroleum-derived fuels. Domestic biofuels have been by far our most successful alternative. Biofuels already displace close to 10 percent of our gasoline supplies, and they have the potential to make significantly larger contributions in the years ahead. Expanding domestic biofuels production and use also will support economic recovery by creating jobs in the areas of feedstock production and delivery, fuels processing in bio refineries, and biofuels marketing. The American people understand the need to reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum supplies. Congress has expressed broad agreement on two fundamental approaches--increasing efficiency of vehicles and increasing use of alternative fuels. We mandated more efficient vehicles by passing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. That bill mandates a brisk expansion of biofuels production under the Renewable Fuels Standard. However, biofuels currently are facing critical market barriers. The most common form of biofuel, ethanol, can only be used as a 10 percent blend with gasoline in most highway vehicles. To enable much larger production and use levels, we need to expand the number of flex-fuel vehicles that can use higher blends, and we need to expand the number of filling stations selling those higher blends. We also need to enable safer and more economical transport of higher volumes by supporting development of biofuel pipelines. To these ends, I am proud today to introduce the Biofuels Market Expansion Act of 2011. This measure would require that at least 90 percent of new auto sales in the United States be flex fuel vehicles by 2016. It would also require major fuel distributers, those owning or branding more than 50 gasoline filling stations, to install increasing numbers of blender pumps at their retail filling stations, and it would authorize funding to support blender pump installations by smaller filling station operators. Finally, this measure would authorize guarantees for loans covering 80 percent of renewable fuel pipeline project costs. The requirements and assistance authorized in this bill will ensure that the number of flex-fuel automobiles and the availability of alternative fuels are expanding in tandem with the production and use of biofuels in our national fuel supply over the next 8 years and beyond. This is a job-creating bill that reduces American dependence on foreign petroleum by giving Americans the option of choosing clean, domestically-produced fuels for their personal transportation needs in the future. These steps represent critical components in the transition of our energy systems away from fossil and imported fuels toward the benefits of greater reliance on sustainable domestic fuel sources. Today, I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I urge Senators' support for this bill and its rapid enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act, also known as the HeLP America Act, will improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by emphasizing prevention, wellness, and health promotion in our communities, workplaces and schools. We made a significant investment in prevention and wellness as part of the passing of the historic Affordable Care Act into law. The robust array of provisions contained in the HeLP America Act continue to build off the investments made by the Affordable Care Act and together, they will significantly transform our current sick care system into a true health care system. Make no mistake about it; these combined efforts will continue our transformation into a genuine wellness society by keeping people from developing chronic diseases and from costly hospitalizations in the first place. Currently, the United States spends more than $2 trillion on health care each year but historically we invest just four cents out of every dollar in prevention and public health--let me repeat that--just four cents out of every dollar is invested in prevention and public health. This is pennies despite all the research that shows that prevention and public health can effectively reduce health care spending. This is why I fought for the Prevention and Public Health Fund that is included in the health reform law. But transforming our Nation into a true wellness society requires a comprehensive approach to make being healthier easier for all Americans. It just doesn't make any sense why we don't put a greater emphasis on making health promotion easier--why would we focus so little on prevention and public health when we know that these initiatives can make us healthier and reduce our annual health care spending? Well, I am proud that the bill before the Senate continues to make significant investments in prevention and wellness. The HeLP America Act will put additional systems into place that will improve access to nutritious foods, opportunities for physical activity, and affordability of recommended preventive services. The bill focuses on initiatives to make kids and schools healthier. In particular, it will support State efforts to provide resources to child care providers to help them meet high-quality physical activity and healthy eating standards. It also directs the Department of Education to provide guidance and technical assistance to schools to provide equal opportunities for students with disabilities for physical education and extracurricular athletics. In addition, the bill focuses on initiatives to make healthier communities and workplaces. For example, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish guidelines in physical activity for children under the age of 5 and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grant program promoting and expanding efforts to create community gardens. Specific to small businesses and workplace wellness programs, there is a provision that allows employers to deduct the cost of athletic facility memberships for their employees and exempts this benefit as taxable income for employees. The HeLP America Act also creates systems that give Americans the information they need to make informed decisions. In particular, there is a provision that requires uniform guidelines be developed for the use of nutrient labeling symbols or systems on the front of food packages. There are provisions meant to strengthen federal initiatives to improve the health literacy of consumers by making health information easier to understand and health care systems easier to navigate. Let me be clear, this bill doesn't just tinker around the edges; it changes the very paradigm of a variety of systems to make it easier for Americans to be healthy. After many years of advocating for wellness and prevention, I am thrilled to see that these things were at the very heart of the historic Affordable Care Act passed into law. But there is still much more to be done, and the HeLP America Act is an important step in continuing our transformation into a genuine wellness society and getting health care costs under control. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Likewise, Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee knows I have been on this issue for a long time. I have a proposal also. Again, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 8, a resolution amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than a three-fifths majority after additional debate; that there be 4 hours for debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with no amendments in order; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution.