Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, if my friend will yield further, again, in my resolution there is a guarantee that the minority has the right to offer amendments--absolute guarantee. As I said, that is something I have urged since 1995. I am very sympathetic to the argument that people are cut out from offering amendments. I know because that has happened to me by the majority at times. So I believe there ought to be rights for the minority. I always hasten to add when I say ``minority'' I am not saying Republicans, I am saying the minority. It may be us pretty soon. It goes back and forth, as my friends knows. There ought to be the right for the minority to offer amendments and to have their voice heard and to, as the Senator says, represent the people of our States adequately. But I ask my friend again, what happens when we have one or two or three or four Senators who don't want to see a bill passed in any form--some bill, just take any bill--that maybe has been worked on by both Republicans and Democrats, has broad bipartisan support maybe to the tune of even 70 or so Senators, but there is one or two or three Senators who don't want it to pass anyway, and they are able to gridlock the place under rule XXII. I know the Senator talked about exercising self-restraint, and I say that is fine. But what if we had that situation where we have two or three Senators saying: I don't care how many Senators are on it I don't want it to move. And they invoke their rights under rule XXII. How do we get over that hurdle?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, if the Senator would indulge me for one more moment, so it is not the position of my friend from Texas that everything needs 60 votes in which to move in the Senate; is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, hopefully, I say to my friend from New Mexico, when we come back on the 25th we will engage in more of this discussion. I should yield the floor. I wanted to raise that question about consensus because it sounds so good, and we all love consensus. Of course we do. But sometimes we cannot get it. Does that mean then that the majority cannot act if they do not get consensus of over 60? Does that mean the majority simply cannot act? Mr. President, I leave the question hanging and yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership. I want to rephrase my question that I left hanging when I yielded the floor the last time. I see our great friend from New York is here to speak. I will not take more than a minute or two. I want to rephrase the question. I asked the question: What has the filibuster become? And I further asked a question about consensus. If you do not get a consensus--that is, over 60 people--to agree on something, should then the majority not have the right to act? I want to rephrase that question and put it this way: If consensus--meaning over 60 Senators--if over 60 Senators cannot agree on something, then should the minority have the absolute total veto power over what the majority is proposing? That is the essence of it. If you cannot get a consensus, should the minority have the total, absolute power to determine the outcome? That is what has happened in the Senate. That is what has become of this filibuster. The end result has become the fact that 41 Senators-- if you do not have 60 Senators or more--41 Senators decide what we do, what we vote on, what comes before this body. How does that square with the principle of democratic government and majority rule? I leave that out there: Should we have and continue to have, if we cannot reach a consensus, should we continue to have veto power by the minority? I also see the Senator from Colorado here to speak. I also want to publicly thank the Senator from New York who I see is about ready to speak, the chairman of our Rules Committee. Senator Schumer has spent so many hours and so many days this past year on this issue of reforming the Senate rules. He was kind enough to let me testify before his committee and kind enough to actually let me sit with his committee to listen to others. Senator Schumer has been in harness on this issue trying to get us to the point where we can have meaningful changes in the rules so that this place can function a little bit better and a little bit more democratically--with a small ``d,'' not democratically in terms of political affiliation. I know in the next few weeks Senator Schumer is going to be very much involved as one on our leadership team, along with Senator Reid and others, seeing what we can do to work things out so we can have a meaningful change in the rules. Again, I am all for getting rid of secret holds, but that seems to be kind of a no-brainer. That would probably get close to 100 votes. But if that is all we are going to do, that is not a very meaningful change in the rules. I submit that what Senator Udall, Senator Merkley, and others have introduced, or I submitted myself going on for 15 years now, that is meaningful change in the rules. I know Senator Schumer is going to be very much involved in that discussion. I applaud him for his efforts and leadership. We will be back on January 25 to take up this cause again. I know I speak for my friend from Oregon that he is going to be here on the 25th, and my friend from New Mexico and everyone else. We are going to be here because we cannot let this go. We cannot permit the Senate to be so dysfunctional that we cannot respond to the urgent needs of America and our place in the world today. We cannot continue to go downhill as a country and cannot continue to let the Senate be a dumping ground and nothing ever gets done. These rules need to be changed. We will be back on the 25th to do so. I thank my friend from Colorado for his indulgence.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator would mind a slight modification to that. One of the things I thought we were kind of getting into today were colloquies wherein we could ask a question and have a response in a reasonable manner. I would ask to modify the unanimous consent request to say that any colloquies entered into-- questions propounded to a Senator through the Chair--not be detracted from the time allotted to that Senator.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to my friend from Illinois as he went down his list. I admit it is a pretty thorough list. I may have missed one. I was conversing with another Senator briefly. Did I miss the higher education bill? The list covered everything else, I say to my friend. The Higher Education Act, which historically, I say to Senator Durbin, in 1992, Senator Kennedy, then the chair of the committee which I now chair, had done a study to see whether direct loans would be better than the indirect loans that go through banks for students going to college. We had this study done, this pilot program. In 1993 and 1994, the pilot program ran. By 1994, the data was in. The Direct Loan Program worked well. It saved tons of money, and the schools liked it, students liked it. Our goal was that in 1995, we were going to then expand it nationwide. Of course, we know what happened in 1995. We lost the Congress. It went to the Republican side. The Republicans did not want to expand the Direct Loan Program. They wanted to keep it going through the banks. Banks loved it. Who does not like free money? From 1995 on, we never had the opportunity to ever expand the Direct Loan Program and save all this money, until finally when Barack Obama became President and Democrats took over the House and the Senate, we were able to pass it and, as the Senator knows, we signed that into law, I think if I am not mistaken, in February of this year right after we passed the health care bill, and it was part of the health care bill. In passing that bill, we went from indirect loans to Direct Loan Program and save $60 billion in 10 years. We took that money and put it in better Pell grants for students. I say to my friend to illustrate, sometimes it takes a long time around here to get things done. If you persevere and the stars align right, you can get it done. It is also a way of saying to my friend from Illinois, thank you for what you did for food safety. I get a lot of accolades. I just happened to be here as chairman of the committee at the right time to get it through. Anyone who knows anything about this issue knows Senator Durbin was the Senator who got this going. I always wondered how many years ago. He said 16 years ago. Again, there is perseverance, stick to it. When you know what is right and good for this country, do not give up and hang in there. Senator Durbin hung in there for 16 long years. We finally got the bill done and passed. I think the President will be signing it into law some time before January 5. A lot fewer people will get sick, a lot more families will be healthy, and our food will be safer because of the efforts of Senator Durbin. I publicly thank him for all of his work on this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, time and time I have come to the floor to give a few remarks about Senators who are retiring and leaving the Senate. They all contributed in their unique way one way or the other to the Senate. Now I find myself with two left about whom I want to comment on their way out of the Senate. In the closing days of the 111th Congress, we are saying goodbye to a number of colleagues, including a veteran Member, much respected on both sides of the aisle. I speak of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh. I listened with great interest to Senator Bayh's eloquent farewell remarks earlier this month. The Senator was also kind enough to have them typed up and sent to our offices. Looking back on his 12 years in this body, he spoke about times of national crisis, including after the 9/11 attacks and during the financial meltdown of 2008. He talked of a time when Senators acted not as Democrats and Republicans but as patriots concerned of doing one thing: doing what is right for the American people. He said that these times of bipartisan action were with the Senate at its very best. For more than two decades, Senator Bayh has embodied everything that is good about this body: a passion for public service, a sincere desire to reach out across the aisle, a great talent for forging coalitions and bringing people together, and a willingness to work long hours to accomplish important things. As we all know, Evan is what we might call a ``son of the Senate.'' He is enormously proud to have been elected to the same seat his father Senator Birch Bayh held for two terms and who remains a great friend of mine after all these years. He has followed in his father's footsteps in fighting for quality public schools, student loans, retirement security, and giving every American access to quality, affordable health care. In addition, he has been a leader in strengthening our Armed Forces and national security. I know that Senator Bayh takes special pride in leading the charge to provide our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with much improved mine-resistant armored vehicles. As he leaves this body, Senator Bayh is still a young man with many chapters yet to be written in his life and career. For more than a quarter century, he has devoted himself to public service, first as Indiana's secretary of state, then as an enormously successful two-term Governor of Indiana, and, of course, since 1999 as a Senator. I have always been a big admirer of one of his signature accomplishments as Governor, which was passing legislation creating the 21st Century Scholars Program. It is a wonderful program. Thanks to his initiative, every child in Indiana who is eligible for the free lunch program in public schools, who graduates from high school, and signs a pledge not to experiment with illegal drugs is entitled--get this--is entitled to a full tuition scholarship at the Indiana public university of his or her choice. Over the years, many thousands of Hoosiers of modest means have been able to attend college thanks to this remarkable law. That is what I call a great--I hope my friend does not mind me saying this--populist, progressive accomplishment. It speaks volumes about Evan Bayh's priorities and values throughout his 24 years in public service. During his two terms in this body, Senator Bayh has always faithfully served the people of Indiana and the people of the United States. I hope and expect he will pursue new avenues of public service after he leaves the Senate because our country sorely needs public servants of his caliber, intelligence, and accomplishments. I will miss the day-to-day friendships, the counsels, the interchanges we have had together in the Senate. I wish Evan and his wonderful wife Susan and their twin sons, Beau and Nick, the very best in the years ahead. Arlen Specter Mr. President, I also wish to pay a farewell to another long-time legislative partner, and that is Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. I listened with great interest to Senator Specter's farewell remarks yesterday. He decried the decline of bipartisan cooperation in this body. As he put it: In some quarters, compromising has become a dirty word. Politics is no longer the art of the possible when senators are intransigent in their positions. During his remarkable 30 years in the Senate--he is the longest serving U.S. Senator in Pennsylvania's history--Arlen Specter has been admired for his fierce independence and for his willingness to cross party lines in order to accomplish big and important things for this country. Nowhere has this been more vividly on display than in the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, on which Senator Specter and I are senior members. Before last year, when he returned to his roots as a Democrat, Arlen was the senior Republican and I was the senior Democrat on that subcommittee. Since 1989, as the majority in the Senate has gone back and forth between the two parties, we alternated as either chair or ranking member. But the transitions were seamless as we passed the gavel back and forth because Arlen and I forged an unshakable partnership. That partnership has been grounded in our shared commitment to finding cures for diseases ranging from cancer to heart disease to Alzheimer's and in our determination to maintain the National Institutes of Health as the jewel in the crown of international biomedical research. Our proudest accomplishment was our collaboration in doubling funding for the National Institutes of Health over a 5-year period, between 1998 and 2003. Last year, we again collaborated in securing $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health in the Recovery Act, although I must be honest and give the senior Senator from Pennsylvania the lion's share of credit for that accomplishment. I say without fear of contradiction that there has been no Member of Congress in the Senate or the House who has championed NIH as passionately and relentlessly and successfully as Senator Arlen Specter. Indeed, at times, in my role when I was chair of the Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee, I have had to remind Arlen that there were other programs besides the NIH in our appropriations bill. In fairness, Senator Specter has also fought passionately to increase funding for public schools and to increase access to higher education, but there is no question that his great passion, his living legacy has been the National Institutes of Health and biomedical research. Today, the prowess and excellence of the National Institutes of Health is truly a living legacy to Senator Specter, and we have countless new medical cures and therapies because of Senator Specter's long and determined advocacy. Mr. President, I will miss my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, who has been a tremendous ally for many years. As he departs the Senate, he can take enormous pride in 30 years of truly distinguished service to the people of Pennsylvania and the United States. I wish Arlen and his wonderful wife Joan the very best in the years ahead. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and wish the occupant of the chair the best of the holiday season and a happy New Year. We will see you when we come back to the next Congress. I yield the floor. Russ Feingold

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, although I don't have anything written, I was listening to the leader speak and the whip talk about Lula Davis and all she has done here in the Senate. I, too, wish to pay my respects and give my thanks and my best wishes to Lula Davis as she leaves the Senate. For 30 years, she has been a loyal, hard-working, passionate advocate for the people of this country in an unelected role--a role that required her to make sure the business of the Senate was conducted. I know of no one who knows the rules and how things work and how things should go better than Lula Davis. At times, she knew everything, it seemed to me. Many times, we would go to her because we would have a bill on the floor and we would have something that would get tied up. I would be managing a bill, and things would get into a big ball of wax sometimes or seem like a big ball of string and you had to figure out how to unwind it. I would always go to Lula Davis and say: OK, how do we get out of this mess? We have an amendment on an amendment and a motion to recommit and all these things piled up. And she always knew how to do it. She always knew how to make sure the place would run. If you ever needed advice on how to do something or accomplish something, you could go to her. Of course, sometimes she would give you advice you didn't want to hear. Sometimes you wanted to do something, and she had to be the person to say: Well, the rules just won't allow you to do that. So there were times I would get frustrated, and I would say: But I want to do this; this is for the good of the country. And Lula Davis would say: Well, Senator, you are just going to have to find some other way to do it. So that is just my way to pay respect to a person who devoted so much of her life to this Senate. A lot of times, we find ourselves here late at night, and once in a while, I would think I was the last person to leave, but Lula was always the last person to leave and always the person--if you came in early in the day, she was the first person here. So she has really been such an integral part of the Senate, the Senate floor is going to have a vacancy without her in the future. So to Lula Davis, I say: Thank you for so many years of friendship and loyalty and hard work in helping to make the Senate a more efficient, compatible working environment. I thank Lula Davis, and I wish her the best in her retirement. I hope she doesn't get too far away from the Senate and that she comes back to see us once in a while to help us untangle that ball of string, as I am sure it is bound to become tangled again sometime.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, very shortly, the Senate will be voting on the continuing resolution that will fund the operations of our Federal Government through March--I think, if I am not mistaken, through March 4. I want to take this time to take a look at what happened recently with our appropriations bill, the so-called omnibus bill, that was defeated by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Again, without getting into who caused what and did what to whom first, which is a game we play a lot around here, the fact remains that none of our appropriations bills were passed this year, even though our subcommittees on appropriations passed out all of our bills. We passed them through the Appropriations Committee and brought them to the Senate for consideration, but they were not taken up on the floor. Again, we can go into all the reasons why yes, why no. But that is water over the dam. The fact is, they weren't; therefore, they weren't passed. At the end of the year, a week ago, Leader Reid wanted to put together all the bills that had been passed out of committee with both Republican and Democratic support. Of the 13 bills--and I could be a little mistaken--only 1 or 2 had any minor changes or votes against them in committee. They were almost all unanimous by Republicans and Democrats. So to keep the government going, we had this omnibus--in other words, putting all the bills together in one package and passing that. My friends objected to that. Because that was objected to, we now face having a continuing resolution to continue the funding from last year on into fiscal year 2011 until March. When the Republicans killed this Omnibus appropriations bill last week, certain things happened. For example, they chose to close Head Start classrooms that serve 65,000 low-income children. By killing the omnibus, my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to cut childcare subsidies for 100,000 low-income working families. They rejected the opportunity to provide lifesaving drugs to people living with AIDS, who are on waiting lists for lifesaving medication. They passed on the chance to provide 4\1/2\ million more meals to seniors in need. All of these programs would have received badly needed increases in the appropriations bill, but my friends on the other side of the aisle said no. They insisted on just keeping the present funding until March. Here is another result of killing the omnibus: Millions of American students who receive Pell grants--low-income students--to go to college no longer know if they will be able to afford college next year. We cannot let that happen. The continuing resolution we will vote for in a few minutes includes a provision that would close the so-called Pell grant shortfall and ensure there is no cut to the Pell grants to our poor students. The Pell Grant Program is the backbone of our Nation's financial aid system. More than 9 million low-income students and middle-income students use these grants toward a postsecondary education or vocational training. People might say: Why has the Pell grant grown so much over the last few months? When the economy is bad, more people tend to go to college and more people in lower income brackets tend to go to college and try to better themselves. That means the cost of providing Pell grants goes up, even when the maximum Pell grant award a person can receive stays the same. Right now, the maximum Pell grant award is $5,550 a year. Nearly 90 percent of the students who receive that level come from families whose annual income is less than $40,000 for a family of four. Without Pell, most of them would have no chance of receiving a postsecondary education. This is truly a program for low-income students and families seeking to better themselves. The omnibus bill that was killed last week would have provided the additional funding to close that shortfall, to keep the maximum grant at $5,550. That was $5.7 billion. Again, that money did not just fall from the sky. Other programs across the Federal Government were cut to offset that spending. We appropriators decided that maintaining Pell was so important that it was worth reducing or eliminating other programs, which we did. When my friends on the other side killed the omnibus, they put the Pell Grant Program in jeopardy and endangered the future of millions of disadvantaged students. According to the recent estimates from OMB, if we do not close the Pell shortfall before February, the maximum award will drop by $1,840, and the Pell grants of all those students with a family income of less than $40,000 will fall by 33 percent--from $5,550 to $3,710 next school year. An estimated 435,000 students who currently receive Pell grants would get nothing, zero. Their entire grant would be cut off. Why do I say that? Because if the award drops by $1,840, if your Pell grant was $1,800, you get nothing. So 435,000 students will get no Pell grants whatsoever. That is the situation facing students all over the country today. We are 4 days away from Christmas. More than 9 million students who depend on Pell grants do not know if their financial aid will be drastically cut or if they will get any financial aid at all. Hopefully, in about 10 minutes, we are going to change that because I am hopeful we will all join together today in supporting this continuing resolution because as a part of the continuing resolution, we close that Pell grant shortfall so we can undo or redo what was undone by not taking up the omnibus bill. We can keep the government running, but we can also make this fix. It is so important to do that now because of certain rules and regulations that go into effect after the first of the year that will drastically impinge on the Pell Grant Program unless we take this action today. I hope all Republicans and Democrats will join in supporting the continuing resolution and so do more than 9 million American students who depend on Pell grants for their college education. Again, I point out that other appropriations will not be settled even if we pass the continuing resolution today. Those decisions are kicked down the street until March 4 when the continuing resolution expires. We are going to face a tough situation on March 4. My friends on the other side of the aisle have said that their plan is to cut nonsecurity-related appropriations, to cut everything except defense, homeland security, military construction, and VA by $100 billion. When you exclude all that and you want to cut $100 billion, that is a 21- percent cut from everything else. Do Republicans really want to cut 21 percent from childcare subsidies for working families in this economy--a 21-percent cut? Do you really want to cut 21 percent from job training programs in this economy? Do you really want to cut 21 percent from programs that educate disadvantaged children, title I programs, in this economy? Do our friends on the other side of the aisle want to cut 21 percent from the AIDS drug assistance program? Do you want to cut 21 percent from senior meals programs? Do we want to cut 21 percent from the Social Security Administration in this economy? That is what is coming down the pike on March 4. We kick the ball down the field a little bit, but on March 4, the battle will be joined again. If my friends on the other side of the aisle try to decimate these programs that are so critical to the well-being of so many families in this country--children, working parents who need childcare, the elderly who rely on a lot of these meals--I had it happen in my own family. Meals on Wheels keeps people from going to the hospital, lets them stay at home and get a decent diet, senior meals programs; job training programs so people can train for new jobs--all part of getting our country back up again. If they are going to cut 21 percent from all this, I want to say there is going to be a battle. We are not going to sit back and let these programs be decimated, these programs that mean so much to so many families. In the meantime, we have to keep the government running, and that is what the continuing resolution is all about. As I said, what is so important is to make sure the Pell grant shortfall is closed, which it is on this continuing resolution. I urge all my colleagues to support the continuing resolution and hopefully when March 4 comes, again we can agree on a bipartisan basis not to decimate so many programs that help so many people in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 715, S. 3481.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a Cardin amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record, as if read.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with the close of the 111th Congress, the Senate will lose one of its most popular, articulate, and outspoken Members. I will lose a kindred spirit and a fellow progressive populist, Byron Dorgan, who has spent his entire four decades in elected office fighting on behalf of family farmers and ranchers, struggling small businesses, ordinary working Americans, and anyone who has been run roughshod over by big business, big banks, or big government. Both Senator Dorgan and I are proud of our roots in the rural upper midwest. I was raised in Cumming, IA, population 162. He was raised in Regent, ND, population 211. Byron always liked to joke that he graduated in the top 10 of his class of 9 students. Senators on both sides of the aisle have come to respect and admire Senator Dorgan's distinctive voice here in the Senate, a voice that mixes keen intelligence with a great sense of humor, plus a gift for making his arguments with colorful, compelling stories and language. Throughout his more than four decades in public service, he has used that voice to speak out powerfully for farm country in rural America. He has fought hard for policies at the national level to give rural families a better chance at success. He has been a strong supporter of the farm bill's safety net provisions, including countercyclical support for farmers to get them through hard times, and he has been equally outspoken in championing strict limits on Federal farm payments to ensure that the lion's share goes to small family farms, not big agribusiness and absentee farm owners. As a senior member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and chair of the Appropriations Committee's Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, Senator Dorgan has always been an outspoken champion of clean, renewable, homegrown energy, including wind and solar and biofuels. He likes to boast that North Dakota is ``the Saudi Arabia of wind.'' Well, my folks in Iowa might dispute that claim, but we get the point. Byron and I have both been strong advocates of building a nationwide distribution grid for wind- and solar-generated energy. I wish to make just one more point about Senator Dorgan. I guess I can say this now since he is retiring and a political opponent won't be able to use it against him. Byron Dorgan is an intellectual. He has a passion for ideas and knowledge. He even writes books--actually, really good books, the kind that show up on the New York Times bestseller list. I am a great fan of his 2007 book entitled ``Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain-Dead Politics Are Selling Out America.'' If you want a blistering and I think dead-on account of the causes of the crash of 2008, read Byron's other book entitled ``Reckless! How Debt, Deregulation, and Dark Money Nearly Bankrupted America.'' I consider Byron Dorgan a great friend, a great Senator, and a great advocate for all working people in this country. He has accomplished many things in his three terms here in the Senate, but I can think of no greater accolade than to say simply that he is a good and decent and honest person with a passion for social justice and a determination to make life better for ordinary Americans. When the 111th Congress comes to a close, of course, my friendship with Byron will continue, but I will miss his day-to-day counsel and good humor. I join with the entire Senate family in wishing Byron and Kim the best in the years ahead. Kit Bond Mr. President, with the retirement of Senator Kit Bond at the close of this Congress, the Senate will lose one of its most respected veteran Members, and a truly distinguished individual with a distinguished career in public service will come to an end. Of course, we would expect big things from a young man who graduated with honors from Princeton and first in his class at the University of Virginia Law School, and Kit Bond did not disappoint. At age 30, he became assistant attorney general of Missouri, serving under former Senator John Danforth. At age 33, he was elected Governor of the State of Missouri, serving two terms. In 1986, he was elected to the Senate, where he has now served for nearly a quarter of a century. Over the years, Kit Bond has been a great friend and a frequent collaborator, especially on the Appropriations Committee. For example, in 1993, when the Midwest was devastated by historic floods, Senator Bond was the senior appropriator in the minority party from the nine impacted States, and I was the senior appropriator in the majority party. We took the lead in the Senate, working together very effectively to rally Federal assistance to victims all across the stricken Midwest. Over the years, we have worked together to improve the locks and dams along the Upper Mississippi. I can say I think we are both proud of our work in the early part of this decade, forging an agreement to authorize the modernization of five of the critical locks so that our goods can move more efficiently up and down the river. We worked very hard for about 4 years to bring together a remarkable coalition of industry and agriculture and the environmental community to make this project possible. Senator Bond and I are members of a breed of Senators affectionately known around here as ``pavers.'' We both believe very strongly that it is a cardinal responsibility of the Federal Government to invest generously in a first-class national transportation infrastructure--the roads, the bridges, the locks, the dams, and so on--what we call the arteries and the veins of commerce. Senator Bond and I have also collaborated frequently to boost the rural economy and improve the quality of life of the people who live in our rural communities. In particular, we have used funding through the Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee of Appropriations to approve housing for people of modest means, with a particular focus on rural areas. On this score, I would note Senator Bond was a ``compassionate conservative'' long before that term came into fashion. He cares deeply about the well-being of the less fortunate in our society, giving them both a helping hand and a hand up. In the mid-1990s, I was proud to work with Senator Bond on the first bipartisan welfare reform bill, modeled, I might say, on the very successful welfare-to-work program we had in Iowa. Over the years, Senator Bond has recruited and retained an exceptionally talented staff. In particular, I will cite Jon Kamarck, his outstanding lead staffer for many years on the Appropriations Committee, with whom I have had the pleasure of working on many occasions. I know Senator Bond also places great store by his long-time staffer and current chief of staff, Brian Klippenstein--who, by the way, had the good sense to marry a Democrat from the State of Iowa. Mr. President, the Senate has been fortunate to have a Senator of Kit Bond's high caliber and character for the last 24 years. In so many ways, he represents the very best in this body--a passion for public service, a willingness to reach across the aisle to get important things done, and an insistence on the highest ethical standards. He has always been determined to do the right thing for the people of Missouri and the entire United States. For me, it has been a great honor to be his friend and colleague for the last 24 years. Our friendship, of course, will continue. And I wish Kit and Linda the very best in the years ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with the close of the 111th Congress, the Senate will lose to retirement Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin--a proud progressive, a fearless reformer, and a genuine maverick in the very best sense of that much-abused term. During his three terms in this body, Senator Feingold has been a worthy successor to another great progressive reformer from Wisconsin, Senator Robert ``Fighting Bob'' LaFollette, whose desk I am proud to occupy, here on the Senate floor--and whose portrait is displayed prominently in Senator Feingold's office. Like Senator LaFollette, Russ Feingold knows that it is not enough to be on the side of the angels. It is not enough to have our hearts in the right place. Progressivism, by its very nature, is a fight against entrenched corporate interests, entrenched economic privilege, and entrenched political power. If we are going to succeed against these forces, we have to know how to fight, and we have to be willing to fight. And, as our colleagues here in the Senate know very well, Senator Feingold is equally skilled at building bridges across the aisle and tenaciously carrying the fight to those who oppose progressive change. Most famously, we witnessed these talents during Senator Feingold's relentless campaign to pass the landmark 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold law. Senator Feingold and his legislative partner, Senator John McCain, championed this legislation for nearly 2 years, overcoming stiff resistance from both parties, as well as from powerful interests outside the Senate. They faced countless obstacles but refused to give up. They won. Again, in 2007, in the wake of the Abramoff scandals, Senator Feingold played the key role in pushing through the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, a tough ethics and lobbying reform bill, which included stringent disclosure requirements and a crack-down on abusive practices by lobbyists. As chair of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee, Senator Feingold cast the Senate's lone vote against the USA PATRIOT Act. For nearly two decades in this body, Senator Feingold has been an outspoken champion of working Americans--fighting for safer workplaces, the right to organize, stronger public schools, better access to higher education and health care. He has always stood up for Wisconsin's family farmers and rural communities. Senator Feingold has accomplished important and even historic things during his tenure as U.S. Senator. But, in my book, the highest accolade is simply that Russ Feingold is a good and decent person, with a passion for fairness, social justice, and honest government. For me, it has been a great honor to be his friend and colleague for the last 18 years. Our friendship, of course, will continue--as will Russ Feingold's fight for the progressive causes we both believe in. Our great friend Paul Wellstone used to say that ``the future belongs to those with passion.'' By that definition, Russ Feingold has a wonderful future ahead of him. I join with the entire Senate family in wishing him the very best in the years ahead. Robert Bennett Mr. President, in these closing days of the 111th Congress, the Senate will be saying farewell to one of our most seasoned and accomplished Members, respected on both sides of the aisle, Senator Robert Bennett of Utah. Certainly, no one in this body doubts Senator Bennett's staunch conservative values and principles, especially on fiscal and regulatory issues. But, throughout his 18 years in this body, Senator Bennett has been a consensus builder, willing to reach across the aisle in order to get important things done for the people of Utah and of the entire United States. Clearly, this thoughtfulness has caused him to lose favor with the more extreme wing of his party, for which he paid a price during the primary election this year. I know I am not alone in mourning the loss of one of the Senate's most thoughtful conservatives. For example, he partnered with Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in advocating a legislation to provide universal health insurance coverage. And in response to the financial crisis of 2008, as a senior member of the Senate banking committee, he supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Senator Bennett was widely criticized by those on the right, as was I for the same vote by critics on the left. But he can take great pride in it, because facts are facts: the Troubled Assets Relief Program prevented a total meltdown of our financial system. And almost the entire $700 billion taxpayer investment has been--or soon will be--paid back to the Treasury. In fact, just this week, the Treasury booked a $12 billion profit on its previous $45 billion TARP investment in Citigroup. I have been proud to call Bob Bennett my friend for the last 18 years, and I count myself fortunate to have served with him on the Appropriations Committee. He is a gentleman, a bridge-builder, a person of rock-solid character and integrity. I join with the entire Senate family in wishing Bob and Joyce the very best in the years ahead. blanche lincoln Mr. President, in these closing days of the 111th Congress, the Senate will be saying farewell to one of our most popular Members, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. During her 12 years in this body, at a time when the Senate has become increasingly partisan and ideologically divided, Senator Lincoln has charted an alternative course. She has cultivated friendships and collaborations on both sides of the aisle, and has been skilled in forging bipartisan agreements on a wide range of issues. Last year, Senator Lincoln succeeded me as chair of the Agriculture Committee. I would note that she is the first Arkansan and the first woman to serve in that position. She has used that position to champion causes that have been her passion for many years, including revitalizing rural communities, supporting family farmers, promoting biofuels and other forms of renewable energy, and advocating for better nutrition for our school- aged children. Senator Lincoln is leaving the Senate at the very top of her game. Just this week, President Obama signed into law the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, the culmination of Senator Lincoln's efforts to provide justice for African-American farmers who suffered decades of discrimination in agricultural programs. Also this week, President Obama signed into law the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act, which will become a major part of Senator Lincoln's legacy as a Senator. When I handed over the gavel of the Senate Agriculture Committee to Senator Lincoln last year, much work had been done on the child nutrition bill but much remained to be done. Senator Lincoln did a fantastic job--a masterful job--of taking over the child nutrition authorization and shepherding it to a unanimous approval by the Senate. Thanks to her leadership, low-income children will have increased access to Federal nutrition programs, the nutritional quality of the programs will improve, and the financial foundation of the National School Lunch Program will be greatly reinforced. Senator Lincoln also exhibited extraordinary leadership earlier this year in the Wall Street reform bill. Again, as the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, she was able to forge bipartisan consensus for strong reform of the derivatives market. Indeed, the provision she championed will help to restore integrity to the derivatives markets, it will allow companies to safely use derivatives to manage their business risk, and it will help to prevent future financial crisis. I was proud to support her in those efforts. For the last 12 years in this body, Senator Lincoln has been a tireless advocate for the people of her State of Arkansas, for American agriculture, for rural Americans, and for families with small kids. She has been an outstanding Senator and a wonderful friend. I join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in wishing Blanche and Steve and their twin boys Reece and Bennett the very best in the years ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague for his forbearance.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I have submitted a resolution honoring Robert ``Bob'' Feller, who passed away 2 days ago. Bob Feller was a great Iowan, great baseball player, and most importantly, a great patriot. He was born and raised in Van Meter, IA. His father ran the family farm, and his mother was a registered nurse and teacher. His father built a baseball diamond on the farm that he named ``Oak View Park.'' Feller attended Van Meter High School, where he was a starting pitcher. Feller recalled his childhood: ``What kid wouldn't enjoy the life I led in Iowa? Baseball and farming, and I had the best of both worlds.'' Bob Feller went on to have one of the greatest baseball careers ever. His career spanned 16 seasons, during which he had 2,581 strikeouts and 266 wins. He had three no-hitters and 12 one-hitters. It is no surprise that Mr. Feller was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1962, his first year of eligibility. But, we do not just honor Feller because of his athletic achievements. We recognize him as a great American and patriot. He served our Nation in the Navy during World War II, enlisting 2 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Although he lost four baseball seasons due to his war service, he never regretted his choice. Feller said recently, ``A lot of folks say that had I not missed those almost four seasons to World War II--during what was probably my physical prime--I might have had 370 or even 400 wins. But I have no regrets. None at all. I did what any American could and should do: serve his country in its time of need. The world's time of need. I knew then, and I know today, that winning World War II was the most important thing to happen to this country in the last 100 years.'' Mr. President, this week we lost a great American.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter and proud co- sponsor of the DREAM Act. This narrowly tailored, bipartisan legislation, introduced in the Senate by my colleague, Senator Durbin, and supported by 40 other Senators, would allow young, undocumented immigrants who grew up in the United States to earn legal residency by obtaining a higher education or joining the military. I have cosponsored the DREAM Act for one simple reason: It will enable these young people--who find themselves undocumented in America not due to their own actions, but due to actions of their parents--to reach their potential and contribute to a stronger, more prosperous America. This legislation has been endorsed by the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, Education, Labor, and Interior. It has been endorsed by numerous former Republican officials, including many from the Bush administration, and has been cosponsored by many of our current and former Republican colleagues here in the Senate. It is supported by colleges and universities in Iowa and across the United States, as well as religious leaders from a wide range of denominations. The young people who would qualify under the DREAM Act came here as children. Some came here so early in their lives that they have no memory of living anywhere other than in the United States. Despite the actions of their parents, they are just as American as you and I. Their stories in letters to my office are heartbreaking. If it weren't for the actions of their parents, they would be citizens no different from our own sons and daughters. These children graduate from high school with honors. They play on our school soccer, football, and basketball teams. They are in the Junior ROTC. They spend time with their friends--friends who may be our own sons and daughters. They want to work afterschool jobs, if they were only allowed to work legally. They want to attend college, if they were only allowed to get the student loans necessary to afford it. They want to serve our country, if only they were allowed to enlist. Yet there are still some who wish to punish these children for the actions of their parents. They say that children who have no control over the decisions of their families must pay the same price as the adults. I am frankly at a loss as to whether there is any other crime that could be committed where an innocent child would be treated as an accessory to an adult, or where the penalty for a child with no ill intent is the same as for an informed adult. The young men and women who would benefit from this legislation are some of the finest, most upstanding people living in the United States. With an education, they can contribute their great talents to our economy, driving innovation and creating jobs. They are committed to the country they consider home, willing to serve under the American flag, willing to fight and die for our country at a time when our military is stretched perilously thin. I want to encourage these energetic, motivated and dedicated young men and women, not maintain the status quo which casts a dark shadow over them. I would also like to address some common misunderstandings about who would qualify to obtain legal residency under the DREAM Act. These young people would have had to come to the U.S. by the age of 15, display good moral character, pass thorough criminal and security clearances, and have lived in the United States for at least 5 years. Only those currently under 30 years of age would be eligible. Legal permanent status would not be conferred until after 10 years. They could only sponsor parents or siblings, and only do so after 12 years have passed, and only after any member of their family who has entered the United States illegally has left the United States for 10 years. Every precaution has been taken to prevent the opportunities afforded by the DREAM Act from being abused. Those who qualify under the DREAM Act would not receive any benefits that naturally born citizens receive. They would only be eligible to apply for Federal student loans that would have to be repaid in full; they would not be eligible for in-state tuition rates or Federal education grants, such as Pell grants. They would receive no preferential treatment. I remain committed to working with my colleagues for a comprehensive solution to our Nation's broken immigration system. We must strengthen our borders, holding employers accountable if they hire illegal workers, and craft policies that are fair to American workers and taxpayers. But in the meantime, it does not make sense to prevent this small group of young people, already present in the U.S. through no fault of their own, from contributing to our Nation's security and economy.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Division H of the explanatory statement accompanying the fiscal year 2011 Consolidated Appropriations Act, under the authority of the Center for Mental Health Services at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, please add Senator Begich to the list of members requesting funds for the Maniilaq Association in Kotzebue, AK, to provide suicide prevention activities in northwest Alaska. Division G

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Illinois for his focus on this issue for a long time and bringing it to our attention. Again, where are we going? We have some more hearings we are going to be having after the first of the year. Then we are going to be looking at legislation we need to do. We need to take care of this. As I said earlier, our friend and former colleague, Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, in 1992, had hearings on this very same subject, and we put in place what we thought were fixes to straighten out this industry and to make sure taxpayers' dollars were better protected. Almost all those have been done away with--the fixes that were made by Senator Nunn and this body, this Congress at that time. We have to reexamine those fixes and others again. For example, as the Senator knows, in 1992, we put a ban on compensating employees solely for recruiting students; in other words, you could not pay recruiters for how many students they recruited.

Mr. HARKIN. A bounty. That was rolled back in 2001. We also had a provision that was put in the law then, that at least 50 percent of your students had to be campus based. That was done away with in 2005. So all your students can be online. Since 2005, we have seen this huge explosion in online students going to these private schools online. So those are just two of the things that have been rolled back. I think we have to reexamine that and reexamine how we better protect both taxpayers and students.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator is being very reasonable. I think these are the minimum kinds of things we ought to do, as I said, to be stewards of the taxpayers' money, protect our veterans, and protect other students. One of the tricks in the trade, as they say--I bet if I asked most Senators to describe a semester, what is a semester, you would think a semester goes usually from September to January, one semester; and maybe January to May is another semester; and then there is summer school. That is not it. A semester is what you make it. Some of these schools have a semester that is 5 weeks long. So if you can keep your students in for 60 percent of the semester, you keep all their money. Then they drop out, and you have the money. This is something else we have to look at, a better definition of what the timeframes are. What do we mean by a semester? How much time is that? How much time does a student have to stay there before the school can keep the grants and keep the loans from the student? But, again, these are things I think our committee and others are going to have to wrestle with, as we go ahead on this issue. I know others are backed up here to speak. I started a little bit late. I was supposed to start at 3:15. I think I started at 3:30, if I am not mistaken. So I will just take a few more minutes and try to close. I do not wish to keep other Senators waiting. I, again, wish to close on this, on the cost and debt. At these for- profit schools, many students do not leave with a degree, but most leave with debt. The average student attends for about 128 days before dropping out. That is a little over 4 months. That is the average. For most schools, that is two terms. That is enough time for students to rack up thousands of dollars in debt--anywhere from $6,000 to $11,000, depending on the program and school. That is because for-profit schools are far more expensive than comparable programs at community colleges or public universities. The average tuition for a for-profit school is about six times higher than a community college and twice as high as a 4-year public school. Average annual tuition for a for-profit school was about $14,000 in 2009, while tuition at community colleges averaged about $2,500, and instate 4-year tuition was about $7,000. Of the 15 schools investigated by GAO, 14 had higher tuition than the nearest public college offering a similar program. One that we looked at offered a ``computer-aided drafting certificate'' for $13,945, when the same program at a nearby community college cost $520. The cost of an associate's degree offered by the second largest for-profit is over $38,000, and a bachelor's degree can cost up to $96,500. Again, I just referenced to the Senator from Illinois the recent study we had done regarding the GIs and what the GIs are coming out with. They are paying three, four, sometimes five times as much going to an online school as they could at a community college or a local public or even a nonprofit university. On the placement--I know others are here, and I do not wish to again hold them up. I talked about what Senator Nunn had done back in 1992. Let me just respond on one thing on the accreditors. The Senator from Illinois mentioned accreditation. I wish to just respond to that because a lot of people think, if they are accredited, they must be all right. But here is what we found. All institutions of higher learning are governed by a combination of the Federal Department of Education, State agencies, and private accrediting agencies, which ought to act as a safeguard against the proliferation of high-cost, low-quality educational institutions. A few States have passed strong State authorization requirements, which have made it difficult for some questionable for-profit colleges to set up shop in those States. Unfortunately, those States are the exception rather than the rule. Accrediting agencies are charged with the mission of ensuring educational quality. However, this does not happen at a lot of for-profit schools. There are two types of accrediting agencies: the so-called national accreditors that focus on accrediting for-profit schools, and there are regional accreditors that accredit most public and nonprofit universities. Increasingly, for-profit schools are seeking regional accreditation. One particular regional accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, accredits 18 of the 24 for-profit schools that have regional accreditation and, until recently, was known as the go-to accreditor for for-profit schools. They have a cozy relationship. We had testimony from a witness employed by one of the national higher education accrediting organizations. He testified: Accreditors must hold institutions accountable to ensure that only the highest level of integrity is injected into the student recruitment and admissions process. The same witness assured the committee that in 629 onsite evaluations of member schools over the previous 2 years, the agency did not find even a single example of ``substantial non-compliance.'' Yet this witness's organization accredits three of the schools documented by the GAO as having engaged in misleading or deceptive recruiting. So, again, that is where we find ourselves: One-quarter of our financial aid budget is going to a sector dominated by education companies owned by investors and shareholders seeking to maximize short-term profit. Their mission is to grow and to get profits at the expense of positive student outcomes. There are virtually no legislative checks in place, though new Department of Education regulation on incentive compensation is a step forward. The current accreditation bodies in higher education are ill-equipped to deal with the size and relentlessness of the investor-owned companies. As a consequence, as I just said, we have ``for-profit'' companies financed with over 85 percent of taxpayer dollars, reaping $3.5 billion in profits, and millions of students leaving these schools with debt but no diploma. These schools will receive more than $30 billion in Federal aid this upcoming year--$30 billion. It seems to me it is the obligation of us here and Federal regulators to provide effective government oversight and regulation of Federal financial aid dollars. The public is watching to see whether taxpayers' dollars are being used wisely and effectively. With high-cost schools, and sky-high dropout rates, with limited job placement and services, I have grave doubts that many of these for-profit schools are a good taxpayer investment. At stake in the debate is the future of millions of Americans who are being aggressively recruited into high-cost programs of often dubious educational quality. For all these reasons--for every Yasmine Issa who has been misled or defrauded by a for-profit college--we have an obligation to make sure these schools are doing a decent job for their students. We need for-profit schools that put the interests of their students first. We need for-profit education companies that strive to serve the needs of the students they recruit and enroll. That is not always the case today. Congress and the executive branch have an obligation, I would say a moral obligation, to provide effective oversight of the for-profit sector in higher education. We owe this to the students, and we owe it to every taxpayer. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.