[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2989-S3035]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




STOP THE STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATE HIKE ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move that the Senate resume 
consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2343, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided and controlled 
between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans 
controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the 
second 30 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to S. 2343, a bill to amend the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 to extend the reduced interest rate for 
     Federal Direct Stafford Loans, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the clerk just read the matter before the 
Senate, which is to prevent the interest rate on loans students receive 
to go to school--the money they borrow--from doubling from 3.4 percent 
to 6.8 percent. That is the pending matter before the Senate.
  Yesterday the Republicans continued to filibuster our plan to prevent 
that from happening. We do not want the rates to double. We don't want 
them to go up at all. There are 30,000 people in Nevada who are 
depending on our doing something to freeze those rates. But what is 
worse, in my estimation--and I think that of the American people--is 
that Republicans seem proud of blocking this legislation. Not a single 
Republican voted to allow the debate to go forward.
  This isn't an issue of saying: OK, if I vote for this, this will be 
the legislation. They would not even let us go forward to debate it. 
They have said they like the bill, except they do not like the way it 
is paid for. Fine. Let's get on the bill and offer amendments to pay 
for it. But no--every single Republican voted no. Every single 
Republican said: We are not going to allow a debate.
  The American people certainly shouldn't be surprised because this has 
been going on for 3 years, almost 4 years. Everything is a fight. They 
are blocking legislation that would allow us to stop the increase of 
the rate on student loans. That is wrong. And the person who signed 
this legislation into law, making this interest rate such as it is, was 
President Bush. So I hope Republicans will come to their senses and 
work with us to accomplish this, but I am not holding my breath 
because, as I indicated, they seem proud they have stopped another 
piece of legislation altogether.
  Now, what does this mean, that they are hanging together to stop 
legislation, to stop progress? Well, as we work to create jobs and make 
college affordable, our colleagues--my Republican friends on the other 
side of the aisle--operate under a different set of priorities.
  In the House, for example, there are efforts now underway to undo a 
hard-fought agreement of last August to cut more than $2 trillion from 
the deficit over the next decade. That agreement came after threats by 
the tea party-

[[Page S2990]]

driven House--and now 40 percent of the people over here are tea party 
advocates--to shut down the government. And they wanted to do that in a 
couple of different ways: not allowing us to continue funding for 
government programs, and then, for the first time ever, there was a 
knockdown, drag-out fight over weeks and weeks as to whether we should 
increase the debt ceiling in this country. During President Reagan's 
time in running the country, this had been done dozens of times. But, 
no, these folks will do nothing without a big fight. As a result of 
that, we came to an agreement that was bipartisan. Now, some say the 
agreement was forced upon the Republicans, but they voted for it, an 
agreement to reduce the deficit, and the deficit we couldn't reduce 
before August of last year. We said: OK, fine, if we don't do something 
about it this year, then there will be automatic cuts called 
sequestration.

  Now the House is doing everything they can to walk away from the 
agreement we made and the bipartisan vote we took. They are doing 
everything they can. They have a Republican budget, the so-called Ryan 
budget. And I say ``so-called'' because they are trying to make a 
reconciliation bill, but they can't do it because they are not 
following the law to do that. So they not only have reneged on this 
bicameral, bipartisan agreement to reduce spending, but they have 
fundamentally skewed priorities because they hand out even more tax 
breaks to multimillionaires and shield corporate defense contractors, 
all at the expense of hard-working, middle-class families, the elderly, 
and those who can least afford it. That is what they are doing in the 
House. They are going to have a so-called rule today and vote on it 
shortly thereafter. They would slash investments to strengthen our 
economy and just shred our social safety nets.
  I want to quote from President Dwight Eisenhower. And let me remind 
everybody that he was a Republican. He was a tremendous President, and 
each day that goes by, people are looking at him more favorably. Here 
is what he said:

       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those 
     who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not 
     clothed.

  This isn't some leftwing, socialistic-leaning liberal. That was 
Dwight Eisenhower--a five-star general who led the invasion of Normandy 
and did many other things, such as starting the National Highway 
System. Let me repeat what he said:

       Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every 
     rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those 
     who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not 
     clothed.

  I didn't make that up. That is what he said. In a balanced world--one 
where a strong national defense and a strong social safety net are both 
valuable pillars of a successful society--that need not necessarily be 
true, is what President Eisenhower said. But the Republican plan would 
enshrine into law a set of unbalanced priorities and ensure the kind of 
terrible math General Eisenhower envisioned.
  Unlike defense contractors and billionaires, ordinary Americans don't 
have high-priced lobbyists to protect them. That is our job. That is 
our job. There is not a person on this side of the aisle who doesn't 
believe it is good that we have wealthy people in America. We have 
Senators here, Democrats, who are wealthy--certainly not all Democrats, 
but there are some. We don't look down on people who are rich, but we 
do have to look out for people who are in need of our help. Most of 
these rich people have all kinds of lobbyists here to help them, but 
the people in Henderson, Ely, and Winnemucca, NV, don't have people 
here to help them. They have us. So Republicans are going after those 
who can't fight back--hard-working Americans and struggling families.
  Let's review a little bit of history again. The sequester isn't the 
first bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit. When I became the 
Democratic leader, I thought--having served on the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs in the House of Representatives and being very interested in 
America's involvement in foreign affairs, I took a trip to Central and 
South America. That was so necessary. And I took Democratic and 
Republican Senators with me. I was very careful in picking two Senators 
whom I wanted on that trip. One was Judd Gregg, a very fine Senator 
from New Hampshire, who has retired, I am sorry to say. I recommended 
that Senator Gregg be a part of President Obama's initial Cabinet. He 
agreed to take the job, but something came up, and he didn't do it. But 
he is a wonderful man. I also wanted Kent Conrad on that trip. And I 
don't know which one knows more about the inner workings of the 
finances of this country, Gregg or Conrad, but they are both good, and 
I wanted them to go together, and they did.
  Senators Gregg and Conrad spent hours and hours seated in that 
airplane working on doing something about the deficit. They both 
believed it needed some really difficult, hard work, and they decided 
to do what the base-closing commission did; that is, prepare 
legislation and give it to a commission that would send it back to us. 
There would be no amendments, no filibuster, just an up-or-down vote. 
That was their legislation. They wrote that and brought it to the 
floor.
  As the leader, I decided I would move to proceed to it, and so I did 
move to proceed to it, thinking it should be a slam dunk. But seven 
Republicans, who had cosponsored the legislation, voted against it. I 
couldn't bring it to the floor. That was where Bowles-Simpson came 
from, as a result of the Republicans walking away from their own 
efforts to reduce the deficit.
  Now, Bowles-Simpson was very difficult. There were 18 members, and 
they had to get 14 of the 18 to approve it. That didn't work. They 
couldn't get that many people to vote for it.
  In the meantime, President Obama was working as hard as he could with 
the lead spokesman of the Republicans, the Speaker of the House, John 
Boehner. John Boehner said: I didn't get elected to do small things, I 
want to do big things. And President Obama, to his detriment with his 
base, said: I will do something to change Social Security and Medicare. 
And all these things he agreed to do publicly. But the Republicans--
John Boehner--could never go against Grover Norquist. The Republicans 
shake in their boots. They will not do anything, even though the 
American people by a more than 70 percent majority say people making 
more than $1 million a year should contribute to what the problems are 
in this country. So that fell apart.
  Then we had the Gang of 6 Senators--three Republicans, three 
Democrats--who had been on the Bowles-Simpson Commission, who said we 
should do something about this. They were in the press, they had press 
conferences, and this was going down the road and doing all kinds of 
great things. While that was going on, there was a decision made, and a 
law was passed to create a supercommittee, to which I appointed Senator 
Patty Murray of Washington to run. No one in the Senate, Democrat or 
Republican, has more respect than Patty Murray. She worked so hard with 
the other 11 Members of Congress to come up with something.
  A few days before they were to arrive at a decision--and the Gang of 
6 members are out here doing all this stuff all the time--I get a 
letter signed by virtually every Republican Senator saying: We are not 
going to raise revenue for anything. The supercommittee didn't work 
there. The Gang of 6 is gone. So we passed this last August to fund 
government for 2 years and to say if we don't arrive at another $1.2 
trillion in deficit reduction during this year, it automatically kicks 
in at the end of this year or the beginning of next year.
  So that is where we are, and the Republicans in the House are trying 
to change that. So that is what this little history lesson has been all 
about.
  I don't like to sequester. I wish we didn't have to do it. It was a 
hard pill to swallow, but it was the right thing to do. If we are ever 
going to reduce the staggering deficit, we are going to have to make 
some hard decisions. So that is what this is all about. But that is the 
point: It is hard to do; therefore, we have to do it, to sequester--
which, in effect, would take almost $500 billion from domestic programs 
and almost $500 billion from defense programs. They were designed to be 
tough enough to force two sides to reach a balanced deal. It hasn't 
happened yet.
  As I said earlier with General Eisenhower's statement, I didn't make 
that

[[Page S2991]]

up. That is what he said. My complaint about the Republicans being so 
unreasonable about everything is something where I am not a lone wolf 
crying in the wilderness. We have two long-time nonpartisan watchers of 
Congress, one from the American Enterprise Institute, which is a 
conservative think tank, another from Brookings Institute that wrote an 
article saying: It is the Republicans. Can't you see what they are 
doing? Here is one thing they said:

       We have been studying Washington politics in Congress for 
     more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this 
     dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both 
     parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we 
     have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the 
     problem lies with the Republican party.

  They further said:

       The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American 
     politics. It is ideologically extreme; of scornful 
     compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, 
     evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its 
     political opposition.

  What brave men to do that, to write these comments--which are true. I 
have been saying that I don't want to fight about everything. 
Republicans insist on balancing the budget on the backs of the middle 
class, seniors, students, single mothers, and those who could least 
afford it. That is what they are doing over there today. It is their 
refusal to compromise that leaves us facing the threat of sequester, 
and it is difficult but it is balanced.
  Going back to the August budget agreement now in order to protect 
wealthy special interests is no solution. Neither is refighting the 
battles of last year. Democrats agree we must reduce our deficits and 
make hard choices, but we believe in a balanced approach that shares 
the pain as well as the responsibility.
  Is the sequester the best way to achieve that balance? No. But 
Republicans refuse to consider a more reasonable approach--one, for 
example, that asks every American to pay his fair share while making 
difficult choices to reduce spending. Democrats will not agree to a 
one-sided solution that lets the superwealthy off the hook while 
forcing the middle class and those in greatest need to bear all the 
hardship.
  Democrats believe we can protect Americans' access to health care, 
create jobs while investing in the future, and protect the poor and 
elderly. But we can't do it alone. It will take work and compromise, 
and so far Republicans have been unwilling to make a serious effort to 
achieve that result.
  Republicans have rejected our balanced approach. Their one-sided 
solution to across-the-board cuts would take away from the many to give 
to the few.
  Here is what the plan would do--not all of it, but here is what their 
plan would do. Remember, they are taking it up over there in the House 
today.
  It would cut Medicaid benefits, increasing the number of uninsured 
children, parents, seniors--and that is in addition to people with 
disabilities--by hundreds of thousands, just eliminate them. It would 
also put seniors in nursing homes at risk. Some of them would have to 
move out of the nursing home, I guess.
  It would punish Americans who receive tax credits to purchase health 
insurance when their financial circumstances change, causing 350,000 
Americans to have no coverage. This would add to the tens of millions 
who already exist that way.
  It would weaken Wall Street reforms, protecting big banks at the 
expense of consumers. Their legislation would once again target middle-
class workers, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, Border Patrol 
agents, drug enforcement, and FBI agents. They would have to be laid 
off.
  It would cut funding for preventive health care programs that fight 
chronic illnesses--such as heart disease, cancer, strokes, and 
diabetes--that cause 70 percent of the deaths in America. Preventive 
care would be reined in.
  It would slash block grant funding in the United States to help 23 
million children, seniors, and disabled Americans live independently 
and out of poverty.
  No segment of the population is immune from this painful, absurd 
Republican plan--except maybe millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy 
corporations. The Republican proposal cuts Meals on Wheels and reduces 
food assistance for almost 2 million needy people. One of the 
Republican candidates running for President said President Obama is the 
Food Stamp President.
  There are more poor people. Our economy has been in bad shape. People 
are struggling. The millionaires are doing fine. And in addition to 
what I have already mentioned, this thing that they are taking up in 
the House today cuts off almost 300,000 children from free school 
lunches at a time when one in five children lives in poverty.
  The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the Republican plan 
fails ``a basic moral test.'' This budget sets very clear priorities. 
The problem is what they are taking up in the House sets up the wrong 
priorities.
  President Franklin Roosevelt said:

       Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened 
     the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be 
     cruel to be tough.

  So Republicans would do well to remember our Nation is judged not 
only by the strength of its military, but also by the strength of its 
values, so says General Eisenhower and President Roosevelt.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                          Skeptical Americans

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, with President Obama officially on 
the campaign trail now, it is hard not to be reminded of the kind of 
candidate he was the last time around and to marvel at the difference.
  At some point the postpartisan healer who pledged to unite Red and 
Blue America became the ``divider in chief,'' a deeply divisive 
President who never seems to miss an opportunity to pit one group 
against another and who is now determined to win reelection not by 
appealing to America's best instincts but all too often to its worst.
  Even the New York Times editorial page, this very morning, says the 
country is more divided than it was 4 years ago under this President. 
Some have argued that the transformation we have witnessed proves that 
the President was a liberal ideologue all along, that the task of 
governing revealed his true instincts. That may be true. But there is 
an even simpler explanation than that, and one that in some ways is 
even more disappointing. It is the idea that the President said what he 
needed to say to get elected then and that he will say whatever he 
needs to say to get reelected now.
  It encapsulates why the American people are so very skeptical of 
politicians. The President's policies may have disappointed. A health 
care bill that was supposed to lower costs is causing them to rise. A 
stimulus bill that was supposed to create jobs was better at generating 
punch lines. But one of the greatest disappointments of this Presidency 
is the difference between the kind of leader this President said he was 
and the kind he has turned out to be.
  How did that happen? Well, I think the President just put too much 
faith in government. Let's face it; there isn't a problem we face that 
this President didn't think the government could solve. Despite all the 
evidence to the contrary, he still can't seem to shake the idea that 
more government is the answer for what ails us.
  When the stimulus failed, it wasn't the government's fault; it was 
the Republicans. When the health care bill caused health care costs to 
rise, the same thing. When trillions are spent and jobs don't come, it 
is ATM machines, it is the weather, it is bankers, it is the rich, it 
is Fox News--it is anything other than the government.
  This is why the sickening waste of taxpayer dollars we have seen so 
many times over the last 3 years--whether it was at a solar company 
such as Solyndra or at a lavish party that Federal bureaucrats threw 
for themselves in Vegas--is viewed not as a symptom of a larger problem 
in Washington but as a problem to be managed, something to acknowledge 
and then move beyond because they just don't seem to see it. The 
President seems to view government the way some parents view their 
children: It can do no wrong.

[[Page S2992]]

  So if there is a problem to solve, a challenge to tackle, the 
solution is always the same: more government, more government. And the 
results are always the same: a disappointment to be blamed on 
somebody--anybody--else.
  I think the President summed it up pretty well during a speech he 
gave in New York just yesterday. This is what he said:

       The only way we can accelerate job creation that takes 
     place on a scale that is needed is bold action from Congress.

  Really? The only way to accelerate job creation is through Congress? 
Not the private sector? Hasn't the experience of the last 3\1/2\ years 
taught this President anything at all about the limitations of 
government action?
  Madam President, 3\1/2\ years and $5 trillion later, there are nearly 
a half million fewer jobs in the country than the day the President 
took office. That is not what most people would describe as a good 
return on investment. Yet that is all we get--the same government-
driven solutions he has been pushing for 3\1/2\ years.
  Nearly 13 million Americans who are actively looking for jobs can't 
find one. Millions more have given up looking for a job altogether as 
the worker participation rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years.
  More than half of all college graduates--the best prepared to enter 
the workforce--can't find a good job. More than half of college 
graduates can't find a job. And this President is proposing the same 
old ideas that have failed before. Some government action failed? Then 
just do it again on a larger scale. That is the approach this President 
has taken. It is his approach still. It is the clearest sign he is 
literally out of ideas.
  But he is unwilling to try something different. He is unwilling to 
confront the fact that a government that might have worked well a half 
century ago is outdated and in desperate need of reform. So he is 
resorting to the same old political gimmicks and games that he 
criticizes others for using.
  Earlier this year the President mocked those who, every time gas 
prices go up, dust off their three-point plans to lower them, 
especially in an election year. That was the President. Yet yesterday 
he was proposing a five-point plan of his own to revive the economy, a 
to-do list in effect for Congress.
  The cynicism is literally breathtaking. Here is a President who, in 
the morning, worked hand-in-hand with Senate Democrats to ensure that 
legislation to freeze interest rates on student loans wouldn't pass, 
and in the afternoon gave a recycled speech in which he pleaded for an 
end to the very gridlock he was orchestrating. There is perhaps no 
better illustration of how far this President has come from the heady 
days of his last campaign.
  Look: Americans voted this President into office on a promise of 
bipartisan action.
  Orchestrating political show votes on student loans and giving 
Congress a post-it note checklist of legislative items to pass before 
the election is not what the American people expected.
  They expected us to work together and they still do.
  The President knows as well as I do that the solution to our economic 
problems lies not in a Post-It-Note congressional agenda dictated from 
a lectern in New York, but through a sound limited-government pro-
growth plan, which includes comprehensive tax reform, a true all-of-
the-above energy policy and the elimination of burdensome regulations 
that are hurting business and hindering job creation.
  Republicans have been calling for these policies for years and the 
President at one time or another has claimed to support them. These are 
proposals where Republicans and Democrats can find common ground. In 
other words, a plan designed not to control free enterprise from 
Washington but to liberate it. We just need the President to show some 
courage and leadership.
  We will get this economy going not by handing out more special favors 
and credits to favored industries and groups, but by simplifying the 
code, clearing out the loopholes, and lowering rates for everybody.
  In less than 8 months, Americans will be hit with the biggest tax 
increase in history--unless we act.
  The President knows as well as I do how devastating this would be for 
the American people--for everyone.
  People who are already struggling will have to do with even less. 
Businesses that are already struggling just to keep afloat will see 
Washington getting an even bigger take than it already is.
  This looming tax hike will be absolutely devastating. Yet here we are 
less than 8 months away from it, and the President is busy 
orchestrating failure in the Senate and waving around some 5-point plan 
cooked up by some high-paid political consultant in Chicago.
  Now, I am not in the business of giving the President campaign 
advice. But I am in the business of trying to get the best possible 
outcome for the American people. And here is an issue--tax reform--
where I know the two parties have a shot at working together to help 
this economy, and restore the American Dream for all those who've 
started to doubt whether it will even be there in a few years.
  So I would respectfully ask the President to ignore his campaign 
consultants for once and do what's right for the nation as a whole. 
Republicans in Congress are ready to work with you, Mr. President, on 
the kind of comprehensive reforms that you yourself have called for in 
the past.
  Working together might not help your campaign, but it would help the 
country. So my message to you is this: We are ready when you are.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. I ask consent to address the Senate as in morning hour.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Startup Act

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, once again, it is that time of year when 
many proud parents will watch their children walk across the graduation 
stage to receive their diplomas. Two years ago, I watched my oldest 
daughter saunter across her college graduation stage and it was one of 
those moments for me in which I realized our country faces tremendous, 
enormous challenges, and if we fail to act our children's future will 
be at significant risk.
  I believe all Members of Congress, in fact every American, has the 
responsibility to be a good steward of what has been passed on to us. 
At that graduation event, I renewed my commitment to do my part to turn 
our country around.
  My fear is we are not doing enough, that we as Americans and 
especially we as Members of this Congress are not doing enough to offer 
our children a bright future. In the last 2 weeks, I have read 
headlines that caught my attention. They would catch every American's 
attention.
  First, the amount of student loan debt has surpassed $1 trillion for 
the first time in American history. Americans now have more combined 
student loan debt than combined credit card debt.
  Second, the AP recently reported that one out of every two college 
graduates this year will be unemployed or underemployed. Unfortunately, 
it is not just college graduates who are having trouble finding a job 
and paying their bills. The Department of Labor reported just last week 
that more than 12 million Americans are still looking for work and our 
economy only added 115,000 jobs in April, the lowest number of jobs 
added in 5 months. This makes 39 straight months of unemployment rate 
over 8 percent.
  Our first priority in Congress must be to strengthen our economy so 
more jobs can be created, more Americans can get back to work, and more 
graduates can pursue their dreams. Data tells us that for close to 
three decades, companies less than 5 years old created almost all the 
new net jobs in America, averaging 3 million jobs each year. While 
startups provide the gasoline to fuel America's economic engine, new 
businesses are hiring fewer employees than in the past and make up a 
smaller share of all companies than in previous years.
  Troubling data out last week from the Census Bureau shows that the 
startup rate fell to the lowest point on record for new firm births in 
2010. While startup companies are so important to job creation, their 
numbers are now falling too. Given the disproportionate impact new 
businesses have on

[[Page S2993]]

the economy, it makes sense to craft targeted policies that help 
entrepreneurs start businesses and that make it easier for these young 
businesses to grow.
  A former NASA engineer now in the technology field gave me a useful 
analogy. He described the process of designing a rocket or an airplane, 
in which there are two forces at play that determine whether the rocket 
will launch or plane will fly: thrust and drag. So much of what we want 
to do around here tends to focus on the thrust, spending money and 
creating programs, when what we ought to be doing is focusing on 
reducing the drag.
  Rather than spend money on government programs, Congress must and 
should enact policies that create an environment in which many 
entrepreneurs and their young companies have a better shot at success, 
and in the process of pursuing success they put people to work--reduce 
the drag so the private sector can create jobs.
  To create this environment where these startup companies can be 
successful, I have introduced the Startup Act with Senator Warner. The 
Startup Act reforms the Federal regulatory process to ensure that the 
cost of compliance does not outweigh the benefits of regulations. The 
Startup Act alters the Tax Code to create incentives that will 
facilitate the financing and growth of new businesses. The Startup Act 
accelerates the commercialization of university research so more good 
ideas move out of the laboratory and into the marketplace, where they 
can create jobs for Americans.
  Perhaps most important, the Startup Act helps America win the global 
battle for talent.
  On a recent trip to Silicon Valley, I met with startups, 
entrepreneurs, and some of the leading technology companies in the 
world--and they were just startup companies a few years ago. While I 
heard many encouraging stories of success, their No. 1 concern was 
attracting and retaining highly skilled employees. One business I met 
said they had plans to hire dozens--I think the number was 68--foreign-
born but U.S.-educated individuals and to hire them here in the United 
States, but they were unable to get the visas necessary to have these 
workers work in the United States. Rather than lose that talent, this 
company hired the employees but placed them at various international 
offices in countries with immigration policies that encouraged the 
retention and attraction of highly skilled foreign-born workers.
  Another company told me that with the talent increasing overseas, it 
will soon be easier for them to open offices and plants in other 
countries rather than have the work done in the United States.
  The last thing we want is for American businesses to have a better 
business climate in places outside the United States. It is not just 
the loss of those dozens of jobs to some other country; many of those 
people in those businesses will become entrepreneurs themselves and 
create their own businesses, hiring even more people down the road. So 
we lose this talent, this skill on two occasions--first, the direct 
jobs today and ultimately the jobs these entrepreneurs will create in 
the future.
  The future of our economic competitiveness depends upon America 
winning the global battle for talent. Foreign-born Americans have a 
strong record of creating businesses and employing Americans. Data 
shows us that 53 percent of immigrant founders of U.S.-based technology 
and engineering companies completed their highest degree at an American 
university, and rather than send these talented, highly educated 
individuals who have been educated in the United States back home once 
they graduate, we should do much more to allow them to remain in the 
United States, where their skills, their talents, and their intellect, 
as well as their new ideas, can fuel U.S. economic growth.
  We are not talking about illegal immigration; we are talking about 
legal immigration. It makes no sense to educate these talented, 
foreign-born students in America and then send them to their home 
countries to compete against Americans for jobs.
  The Startup Act will help America win this global battle for talent. 
The Startup Act creates entrepreneur visas for foreign entrepreneurs 
who register a business and employ Americans in the United States. By 
encouraging more entrepreneurs to stay in America, they will not only 
start more businesses but they will employ more Americans and 
strengthen our economy. The Startup Act also creates a new STEM visa 
for foreign students who graduate from an accredited U.S. university 
with a master's or Ph.D. in science, technology, engineering or 
mathematics. Our own Department of Commerce projects that STEM jobs 
will grow by 17 percent in the years ahead. We have to retain more 
highly skilled and highly talented and educated individuals, the ones 
we educate in America, for us to remain competitive in a global 
economy. We are going to make sure our own U.S.-born and educated 
citizens have those job opportunities as well. We do not want to risk 
the loss of the next Mark Zuckerberg to Brazil or India. Doing so will 
fuel America's economic growth and result in the creation of jobs here 
in America by retaining these folks.

  Despite the overwhelming evidence, Congress should address this 
issue. Congress's conventional wisdom says not much will get done. My 
guess is 80 percent of my colleagues in Congress would agree with the 
proposals contained in this legislation. Particularly, 80 percent I 
think would agree with the aspect of the legislation dealing with STEM 
visas. But we are told that because we cannot do everything, we cannot 
do anything. That excuse is no longer a good one and should not be 
accepted. We cannot continue to operate under the sentence that always 
says we can't do anything in an election year. Our country desperately 
needs us to act now, not later. In fact, in the short time I have been 
a Member of the Senate--about 14, 15 months--six other countries have 
changed their laws to encourage these types of individuals to work in 
their countries, to create jobs, to support entrepreneurship, 
innovation, and job creation in those countries. In just the little 
over 1 year I have been a Member of the Senate, six other countries 
have advanced further than we have while we have waited because we 
cannot do anything because it is an election year.
  America cannot turn a blind eye to those developments or to use the 
upcoming elections as an excuse to do nothing, yet again, on an issue 
that is so critical to our future. Congress should work to make it 
easier for companies to grow because in a free market, when people have 
a good idea and work hard, they not only enhance their own with success 
but the lives of so many others through the products and jobs they 
create.
  If we do not take the steps now to win the global battle for talent, 
our country's future economic growth will be limited. That means 
college grads and young people will have fewer opportunities, and 
higher rates of unemployment may become the norm instead of the 
exception. Allowing talented, foreign-born U.S. students and 
entrepreneurs to remain in the United States will create jobs for more 
Americans.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to implement 
policies such as those contained in the Startup Act so more 
entrepreneurs can turn their ideas into reality, that they will have 
the chance for success. We owe the next generation of Americans the 
opportunity to pursue their dreams--that those who this month walk 
across the graduation stages in high schools and colleges and 
universities, technical colleges and community colleges across our 
country, will have the opportunity to pursue what we all know as the 
American dream.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    National Flood Insurance Program

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I come to the floor again to urge all of 
us to join together on a bipartisan basis and to reauthorize the 
national flood insurance program, to do it now, to do it quickly 
because time is running out. On May 31 the entire National Flood 
Insurance Program will expire. When the clock strikes midnight that 
day, it will be gone unless

[[Page S2994]]

we act, and act we must. This is an important program for the country.

  In my neck of the woods, in south Louisiana in particular, almost 
every real estate closing is dependent on this program because those 
properties need flood insurance for there to be a closing, which is 
very typical in many other parts of the country. So here we are trying 
to get out of a real estate-led recession, trying to bolster the 
economy, and we are on the verge of letting the entire National Flood 
Insurance Program expire yet again.
  What is so frustrating about this is there are not big disagreements 
about how to get this done. This is not an overly partisan issue; we 
are not bitterly divided. This is merely an issue of getting floor time 
in the Senate.
  The House acted last year in a bipartisan way, and the Senate 
committee on which I serve has acted. I have worked very closely with 
my subcommittee chair Jon Tester, and we have acted in a bipartisan 
way. We have put together a good 5-year reauthorization bill, but we 
need to move this on and off the Senate floor to get this done before 
the end of the month.
  Again, I urge the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, to 
give this important matter floor time. We all come here and talk about 
needing to improve the economy. We all come to the floor and talk about 
jobs. Well, it is absolutely necessary in all of those categories, with 
all of those issues in mind, to extend the National Flood Insurance 
Program. And let's not just put a bandaid on it again and let it limp 
along with a very short-term extension. Let's do the full 5-year 
reauthorization, which we can do, which is well in sight.
  Groups around the country, particularly those working in the real 
estate industry and in this part of the economy, strongly support this 
effort.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record several items, including a letter to Senator Reid and Senator 
McConnell signed by dozens of associations all along the political 
spectrum, urging this action.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      May 7, 2012.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: On 
     behalf of the undersigned associations, we respectfully urge 
     the Senate to move quickly to reauthorize the National Flood 
     Insurance Program (NFIP) and avoid a costly lapse in the 
     program on May 31, 2012.
       As you know, more than 5.6 million policyholders in 21,000 
     communities nationwide depend on the NFIP as their main 
     source of protection against property losses that result from 
     flooding. Without flood insurance, many residential and 
     commercial real estate transactions across the country will 
     come to a stop, as federally backed mortgage loans cannot 
     legally be secured without this critical protection. Failing 
     to reauthorize the NFIP could jeopardize nearly 40,000 
     mortgage closings per month, according to the National 
     Association of REALTORS.
       In 2011, Hurricanes Irene and Lee caused significant 
     flooding from North Carolina to Maine. Those storms followed 
     more than one hundred natural catastrophe events and 
     significant spring 2011 flooding in several states across the 
     country. We are about to enter hurricane season again, and 
     America cannot afford a lapse of the program. Failure to 
     reauthorize the NFIP would further stress already struggling 
     real estate markets, potentially cost the government billions 
     of dollars in uncompensated relief efforts, and put millions 
     of consumers at risk.
       In July 2011, the House of Representatives passed a bi-
     partisan measure, H.R. 1309, by a vote of 406-22. On 
     September 9, 2011, the Senate Banking Committee unanimously 
     approved its version of the 5-year bill. Both proposals 
     include a long-term reauthorization and important reforms 
     that will optimize the current program, make needed 
     improvements to the floodplain mapping and appeals processes, 
     and other key reforms that will encourage program 
     participation and put the NFIP back on the path to sound 
     financial footing.
       We urge the full Senate to act now to reauthorize this 
     program and avoid the costly consequences that would result 
     in a lapse from failure to act.
           Sincerely,
       American Bankers Association; American Bankers Insurance 
     Association; American Insurance Association; American Land 
     Title Association; American Resort Development Association; 
     Chamber Southwest LA; Consumer Bankers Association; Council 
     of Insurance Agents and Brokers; Credit Union National 
     Association; The Financial Services Roundtable; Houma-
     Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce; Independent Community Bankers 
     of America; International Council of Shopping Centers; 
     Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America; Mortgage 
     Bankers Association; NAIOP, Commercial Real Estate 
     Development Association; National Association of Federal 
     Credit Unions; National Association of Home Builders; 
     National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; National 
     Association of REALTORS'; National Apartment 
     Association; National Multi-Housing Council; National Ready 
     Mixed Concrete Association; Property Casualty Insurers 
     Association of America; Reinsurance Association of America; 
     Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS).

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record another letter along the same vein addressed to Senator 
Tester, the subcommittee chair, and myself, the ranking member on the 
subcommittee, again strongly supporting this effort. Let's do it. Let's 
do it now. This is the SmarterSafer coalition, and this letter is dated 
May 9.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Americans for Smart Natural


                                           Catastrophe Policy,

                                                      May 9, 2012.
     Hon. Jon Tester,
     Chair, Economic Policy Subcommittee, Senate Banking 
         Committee, Washington DC.
     Hon. David Vitter,
     Ranking Member, Economic Policy Subcommittee, Senate Banking 
         Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Tester and Vitter: As a diverse coalition of 
     taxpayer advocates, environmental organizations, insurance 
     industry interests, housing groups and others, we thank you 
     for your efforts to reauthorize and reform the National Flood 
     Insurance Program (NFIP). The hearing you are holding today 
     is a positive step to getting the full Senate to consider and 
     pass the Banking Committee-passed bill to reform NFIP, which 
     as you know is in need of serious reform. The program is 
     currently almost $18 billion in debt to federal taxpayers and 
     that amount is likely to increase if reforms to the program 
     are not implemented. Without significant reform, the NFIP 
     will not be sustainable and American taxpayers will continue 
     to be asked to bailout the program time and time again.
       The Senate Banking Committee has already unanimously 
     reported out a bill that makes a number of needed reforms to 
     put the flood insurance program on sound financial footing 
     and the House passed NFIP reform with over 400 votes. The 
     bill will phase out risky, unwarranted subsidies that have 
     undermined the financial stability of the program; will allow 
     NFIP to purchase reinsurance to help NFIP pay future claims 
     while protecting taxpayers from these otherwise inevitable 
     costs; will require FEMA to ensure maps are updated and 
     accurate so that people understand and can better prepare for 
     their risks; and will streamline and strengthen mitigation 
     programs to help decrease flood risks and strengthen flood-
     exposed communities, homes, and businesses.
       The Banking Committee has taken a needed step to reforming 
     the nation's flood insurance program and Smarter Safer joins 
     a range of stakeholder groups in applauding this legislation. 
     We urge the full Senate to quickly pass this needed reform to 
     NFIP so that the House and Senate can begin to resolve the 
     differences and quickly get a bill to the President's desk.
       We look forward to working with you on this issue and thank 
     you for all of your efforts to pass this critical 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     SmarterSafer.
       Environmental Organizations: American Rivers, Ceres, Clean 
     Air-Cool Planet, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense 
     Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Republicans for 
     Environmental Protection, Sierra Club.
       Consumer and Taxpayer Advocates: American Conservative 
     Union, American Consumer Institute, Competitive Enterprise 
     Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense.
       Insurer Interests: Allianz of America, Association of 
     Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers, Chubb, Liberty Mutual Group, 
     National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, 
     Reinsurance Association of America, Swiss Re, USAA.
       Housing: National Low Income Housing Coalition, National 
     Leased Housing Association.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to also have 
printed in the Record an op-ed in Roll Call written by two 
representatives of this broad coalition again explaining the absolute 
importance and the critical nature of doing this full, longer term 
reauthorization.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Roll Call, May 8, 2012]

       Sampson & Veissi: End Flood Insurance Program Uncertainty

                   (By David Sampson and Moe Veissi)

       When Gerald Ford took the Presidential Oath of Office after 
     Richard Nixon's resignation, he reminded Congress and the 
     American people that ``even though this is late in

[[Page S2995]]

     an election year, there is no way we can go forward except 
     together and no way anybody can win except by serving the 
     people's urgent needs.''
       Congress would do well to heed his words as we approach a 
     watershed election this November.
       Despite widespread partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill, at 
     least one opportunity for bicameral, bipartisan consensus 
     exists: reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program 
     (NFIP).
       The flood program sits in limbo, set to expire on May 31. 
     Extending the NFIP must be a top congressional priority. The 
     NFIP provides vital flood protection for more than 5.6 
     million home and business owners in 21,000 communities across 
     the country. Furthermore, the housing market relies on a 
     strong and stable flood insurance program.
       A lack of flood insurance coverage creates uncertainty in 
     the housing market and leaves homeowners dangerously 
     vulnerable to devastating floods, which are not just a 
     coastal issue. Flood disasters have been declared in every 
     state and over the past century have claimed more lives and 
     property than any other natural disaster.
       In 2010, the NFIP was allowed to lapse for 53 days, halting 
     tens of thousands of real estate transactions in areas where 
     homebuyers are required to purchase flood insurance to obtain 
     a mortgage. Long-term reauthorization of the insurance 
     program would help provide the housing market with the 
     certainty it needs for a recovery.
       The National Association of Realtors estimates that another 
     lapse in coverage could stall more than 1,300 home sales per 
     day. And disruptions in flood insurance availability leave 
     all taxpayers exposed to widespread, costly relief efforts.
       We have witnessed encouraging signs from elected officials 
     in recent months.
       The Senate Banking Committee passed a five-year 
     reauthorization bill at the end of 2011 and the bill now 
     awaits floor time.
       Last summer, the House passed its five-year reauthorization 
     on a resounding, bipartisan vote of 406 22. Additionally, the 
     Obama Administration has heralded the House legislation and 
     urged Congress to adopt fundamental NFIP reforms.
       This is progress, but it will be of little comfort to 
     homeowners if Congress does not act soon to pass a long-term 
     reauthorization for the NFIP.
       As politics gets more polarized, Americans are looking for 
     signs that our elected officials can work together to address 
     real problems. Realtors and insurers stand together in 
     calling for Congress to put aside partisan differences and 
     bring much-needed certainty to a program on which so many 
     Americans rely.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I keep coming to the floor urging this 
because it is so important and because it is so achievable. Again, 
there are not big issues dividing us. This is not a partisan issue. We 
just need Senate floor time to get it done. In that vein, I will be 
doing two things today and in the near future.
  First, I will be passing around to all Members of the Senate a new 
letter addressed to Senator Reid to urge that this matter be put on the 
floor as soon as possible. In a letter dated February 14, we urged this 
on a bipartisan basis, and 41 Senators, of both parties, signed that. 
This new letter restates that case, and, of course, now it is more 
urgent than ever as the clock ticks to May 31--just 3 weeks and 1 day 
away.
  I will also be proposing an amendment to the next matter that comes 
on the Senate floor to incorporate the Senate bill with perfecting 
amendments that have been worked out toward the floor to incorporate 
that amendment on the next bill on the Senate floor. My understanding 
is that will either be the FDA user fee reauthorization or a small 
business tax bill. Neither of those bills is bitterly partisan or 
highly divisive. So I will be proposing as an amendment to either of 
those bills--whichever comes to the floor next--the full 
reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program along the lines 
the Senate committee has proposed.
  Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
that effort. I urge Senator Reid to use that as a mechanism to get that 
done now, this month, before the expiration of the program.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Emissions Trading

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, in 2005 the European Union began their 
emissions trading scheme, which attempts to cap emissions of carbon 
dioxide from stationary sources within the EU.
  Starting in 2012, civil aviation operators departing from or landing 
in Europe began to be included in this emissions scheme. Under this 
program, any airline, including non-European airlines flying into and 
out of Europe, will be required to pay for EU emissions allowances. 
This change comes at a time when EU allowance prices continue to 
decline to a little over 6 euros, and the commission is considering 
proposals to drive up the prices.
  Allowances will be collected for the entirety of the flight, 
including portions in U.S. and international airspace. For example, 
this means a flight leaving from Los Angeles, CA, and flying to London 
would be taxed on the entirety of the flight, not just the fractional 
part of the flight that is over EU airspace. To put it another way, you 
would be taxed as if 100 percent of your flight was in EU airspace even 
though approximately only 7 percent of the flight actually was; that 
is, a flight originating in California here in the United States and 
flying to London.
  Very simply, the unilateral imposition of such a scheme on the United 
States and other countries is arbitrary, unfair, and a violation of 
international law. Plus, it is being done without any guarantees for 
environmental improvements and at a huge cost to the aviation industry 
and constituents we serve here in this country.
  According to the International Air Transport Association, the 
economic cost of this program for airlines is expected to be $1.3 
billion in 2012. Let me repeat that: $1.3 billion in 2012. It is 
expected to reach as high as $3.5 billion by the year 2020. Those are 
revenues coming out of the airlines in this country that would be used 
to pay for this fee--this tax, if you will--imposed by the EU on U.S. 
airspace. By requiring commercial aviation to comply, the EU ETS also 
limits airline capital that could be available for other meaningful 
purposes, including their ability to invest in more fuel-efficient 
engines, alternative sources of fuel, and research and development.
  No one in Congress is against the EU implementing ETS within their 
boundaries. However, I believe that any system that includes 
international and other non-EU airspace must be addressed through the 
International Civil Aviation Organization, the ICAO policies, of which 
the United States and 190 countries are members. In fact, under current 
ICAO standards, the aviation industry is targeted to achieve a 1.5-
percent average annual improvement in carbon and fuel efficiency 
through 2020 and carbon-neutral growth from 2020 forward.
  That is why the U.S. airline industry and those advocates in the 
industry also agree that a single global approach to greenhouse gas 
emissions set at the ICAO is preferred to the unilateral EU ETS system. 
Even the Obama administration testified before the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure in July of 2011 that an EU ETS is 
inconsistent with international aviation law. The State Department and 
the U.S. Department of Transportation are also pressing this issue with 
their counterparts in Europe and are considering all legal and policy 
options to prevent further application of EU ETS to U.S. air carriers.
  In addition, other nations have voiced opposition. Those nations 
include Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, 
Mexico, the Russian Federation, and South Africa. In fact, China's 
Ambassador to the EU recently suggested that they will begin canceling 
Airbus orders if the EU ETS remains in place. Also, countries such as 
Italy, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, and Spain--all EU member 
states--are calling for the postponement of EU ETS out of concerns 
raised by the international community. Even European manufacturers and 
airlines such as Airbus, Air France, and British Airways have urged 
their respective governments to stop the escalating trade conflict 
between the EU and the rest of the world.
  The EU has no right to play policeman and undermine the ongoing work 
at the ICAO. As a result of this action by the EU, on December 7, 2011, 
I introduced the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition 
Act, S. 1956, which now has seven cosponsors, both Democrats and 
Republicans. The bill gives the Secretary of Transportation the 
authority to take the necessary steps to ensure that America's aviation 
operators are not penalized by

[[Page S2996]]

any system unilaterally imposed by the EU. The bill also requires the 
Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the FAA, and other 
senior U.S. officials to use their authority to conduct international 
negotiations and take other actions necessary to ensure that U.S. 
operators are held harmless from the action of the European Union. The 
House of Representatives passed a similar bill by a voice vote on 
October 24, 2011. The U.S. commercial aviation community, including 
airlines and manufacturers, are all supportive of my bipartisan bill.
  Next month, I am looking forward to the Commerce Committee hearing 
that is scheduled to take a closer look at this important issue and at 
my legislation.
  Doing nothing is not an option. The unilateral imposition of the EU 
emissions trading scheme is a violation of international law and is 
hurting U.S. airlines, manufacturers, and consumers. Keep in mind that 
with near record oil prices, the EU ETS will add to the already high 
amount airlines and passengers pay for fuel.
  We need to act now. We need to send a clear and unequivocal message 
and pass my bipartisan bill that addresses this scheme and protects the 
U.S. aviation industry and American sovereignty. I hope we will act on 
this legislation and make sure that this issue, once and for all, is 
put to rest and that the European Union is not able to assess a tax or 
a fee on American airlines operating in American airspace.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, here we are again in the Senate on yet 
another day when families and students across this country are 
wondering if we are going to do our duty. Are we actually going to move 
legislation that will keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent on 
subsidized student loans or are we going to let it go to 6.8 percent--
double--on July 1?
  We have legislation and we brought it to the floor. Yet yesterday my 
Republican colleagues voted to not even proceed to it. I think the 
people of America are saying that this shouldn't happen. We should be 
able to work these things out. We should move legislation, not obstruct 
it.
  Everyone now agrees we should keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent. 
The Republicans say they want to keep it at 3.4 percent and we say we 
do. The Republicans were initially opposed to this, but they have 
gotten onboard. That is fine. I have been here on the floor listening 
to my colleagues talk about this since Monday. Everyone agrees we have 
to keep it at 3.4 percent and not let it go up, so it ought to be a 
bipartisan issue. We ought to be able to move this rapidly and move on 
to other matters. There are other issues confronting us in the Senate. 
Yet here we are on the floor again today discussing the student loan 
interest rate.
  As I said, we had the vote yesterday to move it forward, but my 
Republican colleagues blocked us from doing that. They agree we should 
keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent, but not on how to pay for it. 
Well, OK, fine; that is a legitimate point of debate and discussion and 
votes. So why don't we move the bill forward, bring it to the floor, 
and let's have a debate and discussion on how we pay for it. If they 
want to offer an amendment, they can offer an amendment and we will 
vote on it. It seems to me--at least I think--that one of the 
responsibilities, and maybe privileges but responsibilities, of the 
majority party in the Senate, whichever party it might be, is to 
initiate legislation and bring it to the floor. The privilege and 
responsibility of the minority party is to be able to amend it, to try 
to make it better as they may see fit. I don't think it should be a 
privilege and responsibility of the minority party to block everything, 
but we have seen that happen more and more over the last few years. 
Republicans won't let us bring a bill to the floor because under the 
rules it requires 60 votes rather than 51 votes to bring a bill 
forward. So, again, we are stuck because we can't bring the bill 
forward.
  I hope we have another cloture vote. Let's keep having these cloture 
votes and maybe Republicans then will say, OK, let's move it forward 
and let's debate it and move on. So I hope that is what we are going to 
be doing rather than stopping the process in its tracks.
  It is interesting to note that House and Senate Republicans were 
silent on this issue until students from around the country became 
aware of the impending increase and made their voices heard. Democrats 
were already hard at work on the solution. I would remind my colleagues 
that earlier this year, in the budget debate in the House, an amendment 
was offered by Democrats during the House budget process to extend the 
current rate of 3.4 percent. That amendment lost by a straight party 
vote. Instead, the Republicans proposed to pay for this by taking money 
from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. That is not an appropriate 
solution, killing the fund that is preventing cancer and preventing 
unnecessary diseases in the United States.
  My friends on the other side would have us believe that nothing bad 
will happen if we eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund. They 
call it a slush fund. There is no truth to that at all. The truth is 
that the elimination of this fund would have disastrous effects on the 
health of our kids and our families. To eliminate the Prevention and 
Public Health Fund will cost us billions in the future for taking care 
of people who have chronic illnesses and chronic diseases and obesity. 
We know that an investment in immunizing our kids--for example, for 
every dollar, it saves us $16 in saved health care costs. To eliminate 
this fund would lead to a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in 
every State due to the expected loss of more than 1.5 million doses of 
lifesaving vaccines and nearly 1,100 skilled public health workers.
  Again, eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund would mean 
eliminating vaccines for our kids, eliminating public health workers 
who know how to deliver these vaccines and respond to outbreaks. We 
would be losing public health staff at the State and local levels.
  Eliminating this fund would end support for increased calls to the 
tobacco quitline, meaning smokers encouraged to quit by the fund's 
strategic and evidence-based investments thus far would not have the 
support to keep that quitline going. If current smoking rates persist, 
6 million kids living in the United States today will ultimately die 
from smoking. If we eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, we 
will be forced to reduce the availability of mental health and 
substance abuse services to very vulnerable Americans.
  Eliminating the fund, as the Republicans want to do, would reduce 
investment in public health laboratory capacity at the State and local 
levels, thereby reducing the speed with which we can detect and respond 
to outbreaks and, yes, maybe even terrorist events. It would cut the 
number of disease detectives that the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention can train and deploy. These disease detectives are our first 
line of defense against infectious diseases.
  Eliminating this fund would result in layoffs, as I said, of public 
health officials in every State and community who are working on 
chronic disease prevention, immunization, health-care-associated 
infections, and other health problems.
  An elimination of the prevention fund--again, I use the word 
``elimination.'' The Republican proposal wouldn't just take some money 
from the prevention fund, it would kill the prevention fund. It would 
take every single penny out of it.
  My friends on the Republican side say: Well, President Obama in his 
budget took money out of the prevention fund. In fact, Democrats joined 
with Republicans earlier this year in taking $5 billion out of the life 
of this fund to help pay for extending the unemployment insurance 
program for the remainder of this year, as well as extending the 
payroll tax cut. They use that example to say, Well, we can kill the 
whole thing. I must be very frank.

[[Page S2997]]

I was not in favor of that $5 billion cut, but be that as it may, as I 
used the analogy yesterday, it is one thing to take a couple of pints 
of blood and another to take all the blood. A person can live if a 
couple of pints of blood are taken; they can live and get healthy. That 
is what is happening to the prevention fund. The Prevention and Public 
Health Fund is alive and well and doing its job even though some money 
is taken out of it. What the Republicans want to do is take all the 
blood out and kill the whole program.
  President Obama has said he will veto this bill if there are any cuts 
in the Prevention and Public Health Fund. So there has been a line 
drawn. We took some money out of it before, but no more. That is it; no 
more money is coming out of this prevention fund because of the good it 
is doing in this country.
  An elimination of this fund, which the Republicans want to do, would 
stop in midstream across our country efforts to address the risk 
factors for heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer--the leading 
causes of death and health care costs. Yesterday in this Chamber I read 
from a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that finds 
that if we could prevent the obesity rate from increasing past its 
current 34-percent rate right now, we could save nearly $550 billion in 
the next 20 years.
  In 1980, the obesity rate was right at about 15 percent in this 
country. Today, as I said, it is 34 percent. If it increases at the 
rate they expect, looking at all indicators now, 42 percent of all 
Americans will be obese by 2030 and one out of every four of them will 
be severely obese. That means a huge increase in adult onset diabetes 
and all the accompanying health care risks and costs, including heart 
disease and stroke, that accompany obesity.
  We know how to address it. We have evidence-based programs that we 
know work in keeping the obesity rate down. That is what the prevention 
fund does. The Republicans want to kill it. They say no, get rid of it.
  Cuts to our chronic disease prevention programs would mean 120 
million Americans--1 in every 3 citizens--would lose access to 
preventive services. It would mean $103 million no longer available to 
States and counties and local jurisdictions to provide these services. 
Over 20 million Americans in rural areas in New York and in Iowa and 
all across this country would no longer have access to preventive 
services and programs.
  The American people get it. Our citizens, whom we represent, get it. 
They understand. A poll was taken which said that voters overwhelmingly 
support more investment in prevention. This is from a 2009 public 
opinion poll: 71 percent of Americans polled said yes, do more, invest 
more in prevention. Our fellow citizens are crying out to us for help. 
They want help. They want to know what to do. How do they change? What 
can we do in our communities, our schools, our workplaces, our clinics, 
our community health centers? What can we do so that we don't get sick, 
so we don't get obese or diabetes, so we don't have heart disease? Most 
people don't know what to do. They need some help. They need 
information. They need support.
  That is what this prevention fund does. We know it works. We know. We 
have evidence-based programs out there that work. The Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention is doing an outstanding job across this 
country in these programs: from community programs, to public health 
infrastructure, to clinical preventive services, research, tobacco 
prevention programs, detection and prevention of infectious diseases, 
and training and preparing the public health workforce--all of this.

  That is why prevention is not just something people go into a 
doctor's office to get a shot for or get a prescription for and people 
get a pill for. Prevention encompasses a lot of different things--
everything from newborn screening, immunizations for children, school-
based programs, and better food and nutrition in our school meals for 
kids.
  Communities change the way they operate and do things--more walking 
paths, more bike paths. The other day there was something said about 
Illinois had used some of this for signage and walking paths for kids. 
I pointed out, yes, they did. What happened is the number of kids 
walking to school increased, and that cut down on the number of buses 
they had to use. It saved the school some money, and the kids got 
healthier.
  I have often used the example that when I first moved to Washington 
in 1979, when I was in the House, my wife and I purchased a home in 
Virginia. We still live there. One of the reasons we bought it was 
because we were about a mile away from a school, a high school. We 
thought: That is great. The kids can just walk to school. Little did I 
know there were no walking paths to the school. It was a busy street. 
There was a sidewalk for a little ways, and then there was not one. The 
kids could not walk. So they had to take a bus just to go 1 mile.
  So, again, communities putting in sidewalks, safe passages for kids 
to do that, that is healthy living. I have seen instances in my own 
State where communities have put in walking paths for the elderly, for 
senior citizens, so they do not have a lot of steps and things to go up 
and down. You would be amazed how many people use that and stay 
healthy.
  Supporting systems in our workplaces, making our workplaces more 
healthy, helping businesses understand what they can do to provide a 
healthier workplace for people--examples abound all over this country.
  I say to the Acting President pro tempore, I am sure I do not know 
all the instances in New York State, but I will bet you communities 
there have gotten together and thought about how to make life a little 
bit more healthy, how to support a more healthy infrastructure for 
their people.
  Some communities are coming up with very ingenious ideas. I say more 
power to them. That is what the Prevention Fund is for--to help them, 
to encourage them, to give them the kind of support they need to 
provide that healthy living.
  I have said many times, it is interesting that in America it is easy 
to be unhealthy and hard to be healthy. One would think it should be 
the other way around. It should be easy to be healthy and harder to be 
unhealthy. It is just the other way around.
  So what we are trying to do with some part of the prevention fund--
not all of it; part of it--is to make it easier to be healthy, to make 
that an easier option for people.
  So if we both agree--Republicans and Democrats--on the fact that we 
need to keep the interest rate on student loans at 3.4 percent, then 
the debate is just on the offset. As I have said, Republicans want to 
kill the prevention fund. The American people have said loudly: No, we 
do not want to do that. We want more investment in prevention. We do 
not want to get sick. We do not want to get obese. We want to quit 
smoking. We want our kids to be healthy. We want them to have healthier 
food, better exercise. Republicans are saying: Well, we are just not 
going to do that. I guess we will pay more for it in chronic illnesses 
and diseases down the line.
  Well, our offset is one that I think is legitimate and sound, closing 
a loophole in the Tax Code. That means more money would go into the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and it would help us keep the 
interest rate at 3.4 percent.
  Education has always, and I hope will always, remain a bipartisan 
issue here. I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table with a 
serious offset--a serious offset. If they do not like what we have 
proposed, please come with something that is serious. Eliminating the 
prevention fund is a no-starter. As the President said, he would veto 
it. So why push it?
  I think this is an opportunity for all of us to come together and 
show the American people this body is not broken; we can work with each 
other and get things done for the good of our people. Again, I 
encourage my Republican colleagues to allow us to move forward on the 
bill. Do not keep blocking it. If they want to offer a different 
offset, fine. Not this one, not the elimination of the prevention fund 
because that is not serious. That is not going anywhere. If they have 
some other ideas, bring them forward. As of yet we have seen nothing 
from my Republican colleagues other than stopping the bill--stopping 
it, stopping it, stopping it.

[[Page S2998]]

  So I hope they will come to the table, and I hope we can move this 
bill forward.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first, I commend my friend from Iowa for 
being such a phenomenal champion of preventive health care. He has been 
fighting for this as long as he has been in the Senate, and he has had 
some great victories. He has had some setbacks but mainly victories. It 
is because of his energy and effort that we are where we are today in 
terms of getting this money for preventive health care, and his 
continued effort to fight for it and to preserve this fund is notable. 
It is going to succeed. If it does, and when it does, it will be mainly 
because of our friend from Iowa.
  Our Republican colleagues could have allowed us yesterday to begin 
debate on legislation to fix the looming increase in student loan 
interest rates. They could have helped us avoid adding to the already 
crushing weight of student debt that families in our country face. They 
could have joined us in taking a step toward letting parents do what 
parents desperately want to do, which is to help their kids to a better 
future.
  American families are waiting for us to act. On July 1 the interest 
rate on student loans is going to increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 
percent. It is going to double unless we act. For every year we fail to 
act, it will cost the typical college student and their family $1,000. 
That is $1,000 that most families do not have to spare. More than 7 
million students and their families nationwide would be affected. So 
the need to act is urgent.
  Instead, in what has come to be a damaging ritual in the Senate, 
Republicans have filibustered a motion to proceed to important 
legislation. Republicans have voted against even allowing the Senate to 
begin to debate a bill. Why not debate it? Why not offer relevant 
amendments? Why not address this important issue?

  No. By their filibuster, our Republican colleagues have refused to 
let the Senate even start this process. Republicans say they too want 
to prevent this increase in student loan interest rates. They differ 
with us, they say, on how to pay for it. Republicans say the only way 
they are going to support this legislation to prevent the rate increase 
is with cuts from a fund that helps to prevent infectious and chronic 
diseases.
  The program Republicans seek to eliminate has provided more than $8 
million to my State to help fight major health problems, such as 
influenza, diabetes, HIV, heart disease, and cervical cancer. These 
funds even helped to provide funding for childhood immunizations 
programs. So what the Republicans propose is this: choose between 
helping college students and their families and helping to prevent 
expensive and debilitating health problems, choose between education 
and health care. Choosing to allow more health problems in order to 
help students and their families is not a choice at all.
  Democrats are offering a different alternative. We recognize the Tax 
Code is full of loopholes and special breaks that allow some 
individuals and some corporations to avoid paying taxes. In this case, 
what is identified is a tax break that allows some professional service 
providers such as lawyers to avoid paying their payroll taxes by 
organizing their businesses as so-called S corporations and then paying 
themselves in the form of dividends instead of salaries. The Government 
Accountability Office recently examined this issue and found widespread 
problems, costing taxpayers and the Treasury billions of dollars each 
year in uncollected revenues.
  What our bill would do is require the professional service providers 
with incomes above $250,000 a year to pay payroll taxes on the income 
they derive from these S corporations. We would use the revenues from 
closing that loophole for those with incomes above $250,000 to prevent 
the interest rate hike that is going to hit middle-income families. At 
the same time we are going to be able to do that, we are also going to 
avoid increasing the deficit or slashing important programs.
  Our Republican colleagues have accused us--to quote one of them--of 
raising taxes on ``the people that are doing some of the very serious 
job creation in this country.''
  Well, not long ago Republicans were saying something different about 
this loophole. For starters, they actually called it a loophole. That 
is what former Vice President Cheney called it during his 2004 Vice 
Presidential debate.
  He called it a ``special loophole.'' He accused his debate opponent 
of dodging $600,000 in payroll taxes using this loophole. Likewise, a 
Republican candidate for the Senate not long ago called this ``a 
deceptive tax scheme to get around the IRS.'' There were no Republican 
cries then about raising taxes on job creators.
  The fact is this loophole ought to be closed, no matter who is taking 
advantage of it, Democrats or Republicans. Closing it, at least for 
those with incomes above $250,000, in order to avoid another blow in a 
long series of blows to middle-income Americans just makes sense and is 
fundamentally fair.
  Hundreds of thousands of students in my State of Michigan depend on 
student loans to help afford college. They and their families know 
college is not going to get any cheaper. They do not need a doubled 
interest rate on top of tuition increases. For many an affordable loan 
is the difference between staying in school or giving up the dream of a 
college education. We should not let this loophole stand in the way of 
those dreams.
  I urge our Republican colleagues to end their filibuster of this 
vital bill. If Republicans think they have a better way, let's debate 
their alternative and let's vote. Let's end this filibuster. Let's end 
it today.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               War Powers

  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I rise today to address perhaps the most 
important constitutional challenge facing the balance of power between 
the Presidency and the Congress in modern times, and also to offer a 
legislative solution that might finally address this paralysis. It is 
an issue that has for far too long remained unresolved. And for the 
past 10 years, the failure of this body to address it has diminished 
the respect, the stature, and the seriousness with which the American 
people have viewed the Congress--to the detriment of our country and to 
our national security.
  The question is simple: When should the President have the unilateral 
authority to decide to use military force, and what is the place of the 
Congress in that process? What has happened to reduce the role of the 
Congress from the body which once clearly decided whether the Nation 
would go to war, to the point that we are viewed as little more than a 
rather mindless conduit that collects taxpayer dollars and dispenses 
them to the President for whatever military functions he decides to 
undertake?
  We know what the Constitution says. Most of us also know the 
difficulties that have attended this situation in the years that 
followed World War II.
  We are aware of the debates that resulted in the war powers 
resolution of nearly 40 years ago in the wake of the Vietnam war, where 
the Congress attempted to define a proper balance between the President 
and this legislative body. I have strong memories of the policy 
conflicts of that era, first as a marine infantry officer who fought on 
the unforgiving battlefields of Vietnam, on which more than 100,000 
U.S. marines were killed or wounded, and later as an ardent student of 
constitutional law during my time at the Georgetown University Law 
Center.
  But it was in the decades following Vietnam that our constitutional 
process seems to have broken apart. Year by year, skirmish by skirmish, 
the role of the Congress in determining where the U.S. military would 
operate and when the awesome power of our weapons systems would be 
unleashed has diminished. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, 
especially with the advent of special operations forces and remote 
bombing capabilities, the Congress seems to have faded into operational 
irrelevance.
  Congressional consent is rarely discussed. The strongest debates 
surround

[[Page S2999]]

the rather irrelevant issue of whether the Congress has even been 
consulted. We have now reached the point that the unprecedented--and, 
quite frankly, contorted--constitutional logic used by this 
administration to intervene in Libya on the basis of what can most 
kindly be called a U.N. standard of humanitarian intervention was not 
even subject to a full debate or a vote on the Senate floor. Such an 
omission, and the precedent it has set, now requires us to accept one 
of two uncomfortable alternatives. Either we as a legislative body must 
reject this passivity and live up to the standards and expectations 
regarding Presidential power that were laid down so carefully by our 
Founding Fathers or we must accept a redefinition of the very precepts 
upon which this government was founded.
  This is not a political issue. We would be facing the exact same 
constitutional challenges no matter the party of the President. In 
fact, unless we resolve this matter, there is no doubt we someday will.
  The conflict in the balance of power between the President and the 
Congress has always been an intrinsic part of our constitutional 
makeup. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides that the 
Congress alone has the power to declare war. Article II, section 2 of 
the Constitution provides that the President shall serve as Commander 
in Chief. In the early days of our Republic, these distinctions were 
clear, particularly since we retained no large standing army during 
peacetime, and since article I, section 8 also provides that the 
Congress has the power to ``raise and support armies,'' a phrase that 
expressed the clear intent of the Framers that large ground forces were 
not to be kept during peacetime but, instead, were to be raised at the 
direction of Congress during the time of war.
  Our history confirms this, as our armies demobilized again and again 
once wars were completed. Only after World War II did this change, when 
our rather reluctant position as the world's greatest guarantor of 
international stability required that we maintain a large standing 
military force, much of it stationed in Europe and Asia, ready to 
respond to crises whose immediacy could not otherwise allow us to go 
through the lengthy process of mobilization in order to raise an army 
and because of that reality made the time-honored process of asking the 
Congress for a formal declaration of war in most cases obsolescent.
  But any logical proposition can be carried to a ridiculous extreme. 
The fact that some military situations have required our Presidents to 
act immediately before then reporting to the Congress does not, in and 
of itself, give the President a blanket authority to use military force 
whenever and wherever he decides to do so, even where Americans are not 
personally at risk and even where the vital interests of our country 
have not been debated and clearly defined. This is the ridiculous 
extreme we have now reached. The world is filled with tyrants. 
Democratic systems are far and few between. I don't know exactly what 
objective standard should be used before the U.S. Government would 
decide to conduct a so-called humanitarian intervention by using our 
military power to address domestic tensions inside another country, and 
I don't believe anyone else knows either. But I will say this: No 
President should have the unilateral authority to make that decision 
either.
  I make this point from the perspective of somebody who grew up in the 
military and whose family has participated as citizen soldiers in most 
of our country's wars, beginning with the American Revolution. I was 
proud to serve as a marine in Vietnam, and I am equally proud of my 
son's service as a marine infantryman in Iraq. I am also deeply 
grateful for having had the opportunity to serve 5 years in the 
Pentagon, first as a marine, then later as Assistant Secretary of 
Defense and as a Secretary of the Navy. I have also benefited over the 
years from having served in many places around the world as a 
journalist, including in Beirut during our military engagement there in 
1983 and in Afghanistan as an embedded journalist in 2004. As most 
people in this body know, I am one of the strongest proponents of the 
refocusing of our national involvement in East Asia. I was the original 
sponsor of a Senate resolution condemning China's use of force with 
respect to sovereignty issues in the South China Sea.
  The point is I am not advocating a retreat from anywhere. But this 
administration's argument that it has the authority to decide when and 
where to use military force without the consent of the Congress, using 
the fragile logic of humanitarian intervention to ostensibly redress 
domestic tensions inside countries where American interests are not 
being directly threatened is gravely dangerous. It is a bridge too far. 
It does not fit our history. To give one individual such discretion 
ridicules our Constitution. It belittles the role of the Congress. For 
anyone in this body to accept this rationale is also for them to accept 
that the Congress no longer has any direct role in the development, and 
particularly in the execution, of foreign policy.
  There are clear and important boundaries that have always existed 
when considering a President's authority to order our military into 
action without the immediate consent of the Congress. To exceed these 
boundaries--as the President has already done with the precedent set in 
Libya--is to deliberately destroy the balance of powers that were built 
so carefully into the Constitution itself.
  These historically acceptable conditions under which a President can 
unilaterally order the military into action are clear: If our country 
or our military forces are attacked; if an attack, including one by 
international terrorists, is imminent and must be preempted; if treaty 
commitments specifically compel us to respond to attacks on our allies; 
if American citizens are detained or threatened; if our sea lanes are 
interrupted, then, and only then, should the President order the use of 
military force without first gaining the approval of the Congress.
  At least until recent months, the Congress has never accepted that 
the President owns the unilateral discretion to initiate combat 
activities without direct provocation, without Americans at risk, 
without the obligations of treaty commitments, and without the consent 
of the Congress. The recent actions by this administration, beginning 
with the months-long intervention in Libya, should give us all grounds 
for concern and alarm about the potential harm to our constitutional 
system itself. We are in no sense compelled--or justified--in taking 
action based on a vote of the United Nations or as a result of a 
decision made by a collective security arrangement, such as NATO, when 
none of its members have been attacked. It is not the prerogative of 
the President to decide to commit our military and our prestige into 
situations that cannot clearly be determined to flow from vital 
national interests.

  Who should decide that? I can't personally and conclusively define 
the boundaries of what is being called a humanitarian intervention and, 
most importantly, neither can anybody else. Where should it apply? 
Where should it not? Rwanda? Libya? Syria? Venezuela? Bangladesh? In 
the absence of a clear determination by our time-honored constitutional 
process, who should decide where our young men and women or our 
national treasure should be risked? Some of these endeavors may be 
justified, some may not. But the most important point to be made is 
that in our system no one person should have the power to inject the 
U.S. military and the prestige of our Nation into such circumstances.
  Our Constitution was founded upon this hesitation. We inherited our 
system from Great Britain, but we adapted and changed it for a reason. 
One of our strongest adjustments from the British system was to ensure 
that no one person would have the power to commit the Nation to 
military schemes that could not be justified by the interests and the 
security of the average citizen. President after President, beginning 
with George Washington, has emphasized the importance of this 
fundamental principle to the stability of our political system and to 
the integrity of our country in the international community. The fact 
that the leadership of our Congress has failed to raise this historic 
standard in the past few years, and most specifically in Libya, is a 
warning sign to this body that it must reaffirm one of its most solemn 
responsibilities.
  I have been working for several months to construct a legislative 
solution to this paralysis. This legislation

[[Page S3000]]

would recognize that modern circumstances require an adroit approach to 
the manner in which our foreign policy is being implemented. But it 
would also put necessary and proper boundaries around a President's 
discretion when it comes to so-called humanitarian intervention, where 
we and our people are not being directly threatened. My legislation 
requires that in any situation where American interests are not 
directly threatened, the President must obtain formal approval by the 
Congress before introducing American military force. This legislation 
will also provide that debate on such a request must begin within days 
of the request and that a vote must proceed in a timely manner.
  I remind the leadership on both sides of this body that despite 
repeated calls from myself and other Senators, when this administration 
conducted month after month of combat operations in Libya, with no 
American interests directly threatened and no clear treaty provisions 
in play, the Congress of the United States, both Democratic and 
Republican, could not even bring itself to have a formal debate on 
whether the use of military force was appropriate, and this use of 
military force that went on for months was never approved. The 
administration, which spent well over $1 billion of taxpayer funds, 
dropped thousands of bombs on the country and operated our military 
offshore for months, claimed that combat was not occurring and rejected 
the notion that the War Powers Act applied to the situation. I am not 
here to debate the War Powers Act; I am suggesting that other statutory 
language that covers these kinds of situations must be enacted. The 
legislation I will be introducing will address this loophole in the 
interpretation of our Constitution. It will serve as a necessary safety 
net to protect the integrity and the intent of the Constitution itself. 
It will ensure that the Congress lives up not only to its prerogatives, 
which were so carefully laid out by our Founding Fathers, but also to 
its responsibilities.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I come down to talk about the issue of 
student loans, as someone who has two ends of this equation--one as the 
former chairman of the Student Loan Corporation for the State of Alaska 
for 7 years. I took that corporation from the brink of bankruptcy, junk 
bond rating, you name it--it was in dismal condition. We turned it 
around, and 7 years later the corporation ended up paying a hefty 
annual dividend to Alaska for higher education and had one of the 
lowest interest rates in the country and increased the capacity for 
students to borrow money not only for 2- and 4-year degrees and 
master's degrees but also for career education, something most people 
told me, when I became chair of that corporation, would never be able 
to be done. Good luck. We wish you the best. And off they went and most 
of them got off the board very quickly. We were able to bring it 
together. In the process, in my experience around the issue of 
education, in making sure young people had the capacity to borrow money 
at reasonable rates, it went down about 2 percent, which is a pretty 
incredible rate for a student or parent to borrow money at.
  I was also chair of the Postsecondary Education Commission for 7 
years, a copartner with the Student Loan Corporation, making sure we 
had strong educational institutions to provide career, college, and 
other types of education for young people. I come with that experience, 
and also I come from experience as a small businessperson, which I will 
get to in a minute, with regard to how we are trying to pay for this 
interest rate, controlling the interest rates and making sure they 
don't rise. The rate for subsidized interest loans will rise from 3.4 
percent to 6.8 percent in July. That will increase the average cost for 
students by $1,000 over the course of a loan. Students are truly 
waiting and families are waiting, as kids are graduating right now 
across this country from high school, getting ready to move on to 
higher education and making their plans--be they scholarships or grants 
or loans or whatever they need to cobble together the amount of money 
needed to move on to a higher education and to ensure they can afford 
it. And the interest rate is part of that equation. Doubling the 
interest rate would be damaging to our young families who are making 
sure their kids can get on and have an opportunity to be educated.

  As you know, many of us have gone onto our Facebook page and Twitter 
accounts and asked constituents from our districts to tell us their 
stories--tell us what is happening: If this interest rate doubles, what 
will happen to you. One Anchorage resident says her granddaughter 
graduated from Charter College. I know this college well. This is a 
privately run college which has an incredible placement rate--almost 
90-percent placement rate once they graduate with their degree. It is 
an intensive program. It is like a job. Students are there 8 to 5 every 
day, all day, for several months, and they consolidate the time. She 
has been working on her accounting degree, and now, 6 years later--
because she had to work two jobs while going to school, trying to pay 
for this and borrowing money--her total debt is $72,000. She is 31 
years old. Her family is truly wondering how she will ever get out of 
debt if this bill doesn't pass, because if the interest rates adjust, 
it is truly money that comes out of her pocket to literally pay off 
interest, and the net result is she gets deeper and deeper in debt.
  We know the cost of college is more and more expensive every year, 
and one way we are going to make sure students can afford this is by 
making sure we do not double the interest rate. We had a vote earlier 
this week that did not succeed. We tried on this side to move it 
forward. It is important for us to make sure every kid has access to 
education--whether it is higher education, career education, voc 
education or whatever the new title is they like to use to describe 
it--because we are in a globally competitive economy, and we need to 
make sure our kids are well educated and have access to education, 
which means affordability.
  Yesterday I was listening to the debate, and this is where my small 
business part comes in. I have been in the small business arena since 
the age of 14. I have operated and owned a variety of businesses--some 
successful, some not so successful. Hopefully, you learn from those 
that are not so successful, and I think I have. The Democrats' pay-
for--the majority's pay-for--was to close a tax loophole used by high-
income earners--basically lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants. No 
disrespect to their fields, but they basically use the system to avoid 
paying the Medicare taxes, for example, that all of us pay. All of us 
who sit in this Chamber, the people who work at the restaurants outside 
here, the people who drive the buses, and everyone else, pays that tax. 
But some use this to organize under an S corporation. It is a technical 
term under the IRS Code that allows those profits to go right to the 
individual. So they decided instead of paying it as a wage, they would 
take it as profit or a dividend, thus avoiding the Medicare taxes all 
of us pay. They are getting a free ride.
  I heard the phrase used yesterday on the floor, ``a bunch of new 
taxes.'' These aren't new taxes. These are taxes that are owed. They 
just found a loophole--again, consultants, lobbyists and lawyers--
through the writing of the laws. And they probably wrote them. 
Actually, they did, if you look at the history of it. They wrote the 
law so they could avoid the Medicare taxes everyone else has to pay. So 
when I hear people saying it is the restaurant owner, it is the 
retailer, the plumber, I think, that is a bunch of baloney. That is 
misinforming the public. It is unbelievable. I know this, because as a 
former retailer who had an S corporation, we paid our taxes. We paid 
with a wage. We paid it all.
  This loophole is clear. All you have to do is look at it. They have 
to meet three standards: modified gross income above $250,000 for joint 
filers, $200,000 for individuals and shareholders, and an S corporation 
that derives 75 percent or more of gross revenues from services of 
three or fewer shareholders. Service is defined as lobbying, law, 
engineering, architect, accounting, actuarial science--which is a 
science--performing arts, athletes, and brokerage services. I am 
looking here, and I don't see where it says retailers. It doesn't say 
the mom-and-pop folks who work every day and pay their taxes.
  So for Members to come to the floor and try to trick the public--
because

[[Page S3001]]

that is what they tried to do by using convoluted words, knowing people 
are getting the 10-second sound bites--saying, oh, it is going to raise 
new taxes and cause all these small businesses not to hire, that is 
baloney. This is about lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants who wrote 
the law making sure they didn't have to pay a dime. That is what that 
is about. For people to come to the floor and say we are going to raise 
the interest rate on hard-working families who are trying to get their 
kids through college is unbelievable.
  I hope we take this up again. I hope we vote on it and get this thing 
resolved, and make sure working families can afford to get their kids 
into college and can afford the high cost so they can become productive 
parts of this country, perhaps opening their own small business and 
paying their taxes, as every other small business does.
  I was appalled when I heard some of the Members speaking on this, and 
they sounded so logical. But to be frank with you, there are not many 
in this body--no disrespect to my colleagues--who have owned and 
operated a true small business. I am talking about starting with a few 
nickels and dimes because you got turned down by the bank; where the 
banker told you your idea was a dumb idea. I can say this from personal 
experience. Three years later, I sold that business for three times 
what I had invested. I thought it was a good idea, but the banker 
didn't. But I had to scratch together two nickels to make that business 
successful. I had to work 12 to 15 hours every day to make sure it was 
successful. That is a small businessperson. There are not many in this 
body.
  So when a Member comes to the floor and sounds so professional in 
their description of how it is going to affect certain people, it is 
incorrect. And one thing I wouldn't mind in this body is to have 
factual debates. That is what the public deserves, not this kind of 10-
second media bite, where they can get away with anything and then say 
back home, we didn't raise taxes, we didn't do this. What they are 
doing is jacking up rates on students. That is what is going to happen 
at the end of the day here, by July 1, if we don't take action.

  And we have taken action on this side. But the end result will be 
that families, hard-working families, middle-class families, will pay 
more for their students' education, and students will pay more for 
their education because of a simple law that we can correct. All we 
have to do is close the loophole that lobbyists, lawyers, and 
consultants are taking advantage of and wrote to their advantage to 
stick it to the middle class. I think it is time to reverse the trend, 
for once, around this place--just once--and give the middle class a 
break here. This is a break they deserve and it will help to build our 
economy in the future because we will have a highly educated workforce 
meeting this global economy.
  I know there is another alternative out there. There is a new pay-
for, and here is what that does: It takes away prevention funds for 
health--$226 million used to reduce diabetes and heart disease. I don't 
know about my colleagues, but if we don't prevent it, then we may have 
a higher cost later. Those are preventable diseases. This money is well 
invested. They also want to take away the $93 million used for anti-
tobacco education and $190 million used for immunizations.
  Our Republican friends do not like the plan that closes the loophole 
on lobbyists, lawyers, and consultants, but they do like the one that 
takes away prevention programs that help the middle class, that helps 
our young families who might be experiencing signs of a preventable 
disease--heart disease. And a little prevention might save their lives, 
but it will also save on health care costs in the future.
  I see this proposal as crazy talk. I don't know how else to describe 
it. I am trying to keep it simple. Let's get on with closing the 
loopholes people took advantage of by lobbying and wheeling and dealing 
in the halls of Congress. Let's fix that and protect our working 
families, our middle-class families, and make sure we are doing the 
right thing. That is what they sent us here to do, and I think we have 
an obligation.
  Again, I hope we move forward and make sure we are not going to allow 
the rates on these loans to double. I am not for doubling the rates; 
3.4 percent is a good rate. We should ensure students can get that rate 
as they get prepared for the fall session and are borrowing money to 
get on with their higher education.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
calling for a real solution to the impending student debt crisis. 
Yesterday we had a chance to do the right thing and stand with millions 
of young Americans all across our country, to invest in their future by 
preventing these interest rates from doubling on Stafford loans 52 days 
from now. Instead, our colleagues across the aisle chose to stand in 
the way of a commonsense proposal. As a result, 7 million students are 
facing higher interest rates that will cost them each an extra $1,000 a 
year in interest, further pushing access to quality higher education 
out of reach for too many and saddling others with additional 
unmanageable debt when they get out of college and join the workforce.
  But don't take it from me about how tough this is going to be, take 
it from the students and the families themselves. Just as the Presiding 
Officer has heard from thousands of families all across Alaska, we have 
been hearing the same online and through e-mail about what this would 
actually do to their families.
  I heard from one New York parent who has a child in college and 
another heading there this fall. His older child spent a year in 
AmeriCorps, and his younger is there serving now. He said:

       These kids are serving America. Both of my kids will leave 
     college with around $25,000 in debt, if we can afford to keep 
     it down that much.

  We should all be able to agree that adding another $1,000 or more per 
year to the debt of kids who are only looking to serve this country, 
get a good education, and help rebuild this economy is wrong.
  I heard from a woman in the Bronx. She has a job as a social worker, 
and she is on track to pay off her student loans in the next 10 or 11 
years--just in time for her twin daughters to start college. She said:

       Doubling my student loan interest will keep me in debt at a 
     time when I am going to need every single penny to get my 
     kids through college with as little debt of their own as 
     possible. The more interest I pay, the more they'll have to 
     borrow for their own educations, and the cycle will continue 
     indefinitely.

  I heard from a woman in Saratoga with a bachelor's degree in hotel, 
resort and tourism management. Despite making good money, she says that 
paying $800 a month in student loans on top of her everyday bills makes 
getting by nearly impossible. She said:

       My choice is to instead decide what bill I'm going to pay 
     this month, making me fall behind on other payments, 
     destroying my credit in the future. If my interest rate was 
     any higher, I honestly do not know how I would survive at 
     all. Pretty much all the money I am making is going straight 
     into student loans. We need all the help we can get.

  These are just a few of the stories I heard yesterday. And the 
families expect better from us.
  When we price young people out of a college education, we all are 
going to pay the price. When we limit their opportunity, we rob 
ourselves of those future engineers, biologists, and small business 
owners. America's ability to lead the global economy relies on our 
ability to outeducate the global competition.
  Let's open doors to higher education to anyone who is willing to work 
for it, and let's keep it affordable. Let's reward hard work and 
responsibility instead of risk taking. There is no excuse for inaction, 
so let's have a real debate, in good faith, to solve this problem we 
all know is within our reach. Students and families all across America 
can't afford any more delay.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S3002]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Charter Schools

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, this week is the 13th annual National 
Charter Schools Week. On Tuesday, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and I 
joined with 10 other Senators in submitting a resolution praising 
teachers, administrators, parents, and students who are part of the 
charter school movement across our country.
  Let me begin by explaining exactly what a charter school is because 
sometimes we stand here in the Senate and start talking without 
explaining the subject. A charter school is the Memphis Academy of 
Science and Engineering. I visited there 4 years ago during spring 
break. Most of the students in Memphis were somewhere else, but not the 
students at the Memphis Academy of Science and Engineering. These were 
sophomores studying advanced placement biology. These were children who 
had been in other schools the year before that were deemed to be low-
performing schools. In other words, these were among the students in 
Memphis considered least likely to succeed. But they were fortunate. 
They were allowed to go to this charter school. Their parents had 
chosen this charter school.
  Here is what was different about the school. The union rules, the 
State rules, and the Federal rules had been relaxed so that the 
teachers had the freedom to do what they thought those children needed 
in that school. In this case, many of these children didn't have as 
much at home as other children did, so the teachers decided that the 
school ought to be open 12 hours a day, that it ought to be open on 
Saturday morning, and that it ought to be open more weeks a year than 
other schools. And the students were there on spring break studying 
advanced placement biology, which is not what many sophomores do in 
many schools in this country. And these children were succeeding.
  The charter school was able to pay some teachers more than others. It 
was able to have some classes that were smaller than others. It meant 
that some scheduled classes were longer than others and some children 
got special attention that needed it.
  You may say: Well, that makes so much common sense. Why aren't 
teachers able to do that in every public school in America? That is a 
very good question because, in a way, every one of our 100,000 public 
schools in America should be a charter school in the sense that the 
real definition of a charter school is one that gives teachers the 
freedom to use their own good sense and judgment with the children whom 
parents choose to send to that school.
  I have a personal interest in charter schools. Twenty years ago, I 
was the U.S. Secretary of Education. I was in my final year. The last 
thing I did in 1992 as Secretary was to write a letter to all the 
school superintendents in America urging them to try what a small 
number of Minnesota public schools were doing in what they were then 
calling startup schools. These were the first charter schools in 
America. Their origin was primarily from those who were part of the 
Democratic Farmer Labor Party in Minnesota. But at the same time, on 
the conservative side of the ideological spectrum, there were many who 
were calling for getting rid of teacher union rules and State rules and 
regulations that were making it harder for teachers to teach. So there 
was a happy convergence of support for this idea of startup schools.
  I remember that Albert Shanker, the late head of the American 
Federation of Teachers, supported the idea from the beginning. But many 
of those in the teachers unions opposed him. Many of those in the 
education establishment didn't like it. They were afraid of what might 
happen.
  Well, here is what has happened over the last 20 years. Instead of a 
handful of schools in Minnesota, we now have about 5,600 charter 
schools in America today. About 5 percent of all of our public schools 
are charter schools. The way they work is very simple. They are public 
schools, and the money the State and local government would ordinarily 
spend on their district school follows each child to the charter 
school. So it is just a public school organized in a different way.
  The first one, as I said, was in 1992--City Academy High School in 
St. Paul, MN. In 1997, President Clinton called for creating 3,000 
charter schools by 2002. This was after the first President Bush had 
called for creating ``break the mold'' schools in every school district 
in America--another name for what we call charter schools today. And 
then in 2002 the second President Bush called for $200 million to 
support charter schools. Today, 41 States have charter schools, and the 
schools serve more than 2 million students--about 4 percent of the 50 
million students in our public schools today.
  I am proud to say that our own State of Tennessee has had a strong 
charter school movement since 2002, and only recently has the State 
charter law been amended to remove the cap on the number of schools in 
the State and limitations on student eligibility. We currently have 40 
charter schools operating in Tennessee--25 in Memphis and 11 in 
Nashville--with nearly 10,000 students attending these schools. Our 
First to the Top plan--Tennessee won the President's Race to the Top 
plan for education--included $14 million to expand high-performing 
charter schools. The Achievement School District, which Governor Bill 
Haslam created, has approved three charter operators to turn around 
priority schools that are failing, and we can expect more to be 
approved next year.
  So the question often is asked, well, are charter schools really 
helping students? And in some ways the jury is still out. Charter 
schools are relatively new, and there are many factors that go into the 
success of a student in a school, the No. 1 factor being what happens 
at home. But there are good and encouraging indications.
  A recent study by Stanford University found that two-thirds of the 
charter schools in Tennessee have been improving student performance in 
reading or math at a faster rate than competing traditional district 
public schools. Sixty-seven percent of charter schools in Tennessee 
have been improving the overall growth of their students for the last 3 
years.
  But that means that 30 percent of the charter schools weren't 
performing as well or were performing worse. So the fact is, not every 
charter school is going to be successful. Not every startup business is 
successful. But we have a model in our country that reminds us of what 
can happen when we have autonomous institutions where administrators 
and teachers have the privilege of using their own judgment and common 
sense to make things happen, and we call that higher education.
  In the United States of America, we have around 6,000 institutions of 
higher education. There are all kinds--Yeshiva University, Nashville 
Auto Diesel College, Vanderbilt University, the University of 
Tennessee, Notre Dame, or Stanford. There are many different kinds--
for-profit, nonprofit, public, nonpublic. But they are all largely 
autonomous and the students choose the schools they attend. And what 
has happened? Everyone in the world agrees that we have not only the 
best colleges in America, but we have almost all of the very best 
colleges.
  So our goal should be to gradually increase the number of charter 
schools. At the same time, it is important that there should be some 
accountability. I know that in Tennessee they have a tough review 
board, and if a charter school is not working, it is closed down. That 
should be the case in many other places. You might ask: Why would you 
go through that struggle? Well, we should be doing that with some of 
the non-charter public schools as well, and we are beginning to that 
with so-called turnaround schools.
  Charter schools should be held to the same standards as other public 
schools. And charter schools shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose; 
they should be required to enroll all eligible students. If more 
students want to come than they have room for, there could be some fair 
method for choosing the students, such as a lottery. That makes a very 
good case. If charter schools are so popular that more families want 
their children to go to them, then we need even more charter schools.
  I am happy to come to the floor today to praise the teachers and the

[[Page S3003]]

innovators, Presidents of both parties, including President Obama and 
his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who have strongly supported 
charter schools, just as President Bush and President Clinton and the 
first President Bush did.
  This is a movement that has broad bipartisan support. It has grown 
from a handful of schools in Minnesota 20 years ago to 5 percent of all 
of our public schools in the country today. What we have found is that 
when you give teachers more freedom to use good judgment and when you 
give parents more choices of schools, good things happen. The charter 
school movement is proving that. This is a week to salute their hard 
work and to hope that over the next year, 5 years, 10 years, more and 
more public schools become charter schools, where teachers are free to 
exercise their judgment and parents are free to choose the schools 
their children attend.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, in less than 2 months--53 days--the 
interest rate on subsidized student loans will double to 6.8 percent 
unless Congress acts. If the rate on subsidized Stafford loans is 
allowed to rise, as many as 7.4 million students across the Nation, 
including approximately 43,000 students in Rhode Island, will pay about 
$1,000 more for each year that they borrow, and that is on top of 
already significant debt.
  Some have argued, even while claiming to support keeping interest 
rates low, that the increase would not be a significant financial 
burden. Students and families beg to disagree. This would be a 
significant impediment to completing their education. For younger 
students starting their education, for those seeking educational 
opportunities for job transition in midlife, those opportunities would 
be frustrated also. Right now students and their families are sitting 
around the kitchen table making tough decisions about next year and 
whether they can afford to go to school if interest rates double.
  One Rhode Island mother wrote me:

       Please do not raise the interest rates on student loans. My 
     son will be in his last year . . . I cannot afford to pay any 
     more and fear that he will not be able to graduate and still 
     have all the loans to pay back.

  So in addition to frustrating educational advancement, it could leave 
many students across the country with lots of debt and no degree.
  Hundreds of thousands of young people, parents, educators, and 
members of the faith community and other community leaders have come to 
us with one simple request: Don't double the rate.
  Some on the other side have argued that low-cost Federal loans have 
contributed to rising college costs and increased student debt. This 
does not make sense. The maximum amount undergraduate students can 
borrow in subsidized loans has remained unchanged at $23,000 for the 
last 20 years. There are many causes that are accelerating tuition, but 
the amount of available, accessible subsidized Federal loans for 
students has remained unchanged for 20 years. But increasing the cost 
of these loans by doubling the interest rate will certainly make 
college more expensive for families and for students.
  We need to address college costs, but having the Federal Government 
double the interest it charges for students, particularly the low- and 
moderate-income students, is not the solution. In fact, it complicates 
the problem dramatically.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they want to stop 
this from happening. Governor Romney, the presumptive Presidential 
nominee, says he wants to stop this from happening. Yet they are 
blocking us from even moving forward procedurally so we can debate 
these things, so they could offer their proposals to pay for what we 
agree needs to be done, to stop the interest rate from doubling. They 
are blocking debate because they refuse as much on an ideological as on 
a practical basis to change the Tax Code and to close a loophole that 
is egregious and should be closed in order to allow us to help middle-
income families. I think they have taken this pledge with respect to no 
new taxes to a degree that defeats a practical, pragmatic solution to a 
problem that they know has to be solved. It has to be solved before 
July 1.
  This decision is fairly clear. It is a choice between allowing young 
people to get a college degree or fealty, to a pledge to never, ever 
raise anything that Grover Norquist says is remotely connected to a 
tax. It is that simple. Unfortunately, that simplicity is undercutting 
the hopes and dreams of thousands of American students, and that is 
what it is coming down to.
  One of the other ironies in this debate is what we propose to do. 
Closing the subchapter S loophole for high-wage earners in professional 
endeavors is also something that has long been criticized by 
conservatives. In the 2004 Presidential campaign, the late conservative 
columnist Robert Novak described the subchapter S loophole as ``one of 
the last loopholes left in the Internal Revenue Service Code, and it is 
a big one.'' I don't think anyone would accuse the late Robert Novak as 
being anything but staunchly conservative in all his views.
  The Wall Street Journal, calling out former Senator John Edwards for 
his use of this loophole in 2004, called it ``a clever tax dodge.''
  Again we have a clever tax dodge pitted against helping students go 
to college. I think helping students go to college should win.
  In fact, the Wall Street Journal editorial points out how in practice 
this loophole is used. In their words:

       While making his fortune as a trial lawyer [referring to 
     Senator Edwards] in 1995, he formed what is known as a 
     `subchapter S,' corporation with himself as the sole 
     shareholder. Instead of taking his $26.9 million as earnings 
     directly in the following four years, he paid himself a 
     salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as corporate 
     dividends.

  Obviously at a much lower tax rate but also avoiding payroll taxes.
  That is what we are trying to close here. I think it ought to be 
closed in fairness anyway, but the added benefit is that we are able, 
by closing this loophole, to prevent the doubling of the interest rate 
on student loans.
  This is a loophole that should be closed. Again, this money will 
require people to pay directly to the Social Security trust fund and 
Medicare trust fund these funds which otherwise were avoided through 
subchapter S, so it doesn't weaken Social Security but it allows us, 
through the scoring mechanism, to prevent doubling of the interest rate 
on subsidized loans. It is a win-win proposition.
  What they propose is going after the preventive care fund that was 
part of health reform. It seems to me it is sort of an unfortunate 
pitting of one program that benefits middle-income families versus 
another program that potentially benefits all, but particularly middle-
class families. Frankly, I think there is another concept here which we 
all agree about in theory--if we do not enhance prevention 
opportunities, the cost of health care will be going up and up. What is 
unsustainable now will become more unsustainable. It is not an 
appropriate way to deal with this issue.
  At a minimum, I hope we can at least get to a serious debate about 
this. If that is the proposal that Republicans have, let's get it on 
the table, let's take a vote. Let's take a vote whether you want to 
close loopholes for very specialized, very wealthy lobbyists and 
lawyers and professionals, or do you want to impact potential savings 
on health care through prevention.
  I think and hope we can come to a bipartisan agreement. The clock is 
ticking. The time to act is now. Students and families are counting on 
us to do the right thing and fix this problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I enjoyed listening to the Senator 
from Rhode Island, as I always do. His passion for education is always 
on his sleeve and always front and center and I admire him for that.
  There are a couple of things I wish to make clear. If you are a 
student and you already have a student loan, what we are talking about 
has nothing to do with your loan. In other words, your rate on that 
loan is not going up. What we are talking about only affects new loans. 
So before you think about not going to college next year because of all 
this talk about student loan rates going up, that is not a problem. We 
are only talking about new loans.
  Second, for 60 percent of the students who get new loans, we are not 
talking

[[Page S3004]]

about you either. So you don't have to worry about student loan rates 
going up.
  Third, for those of you about whom we are talking, the 40 percent who 
have these subsidized undergraduate student loans, what we are talking 
about saving you is $7 a month in interest payments over the next 10 
years. Now $7 a month can add up, which is why Governor Romney as well 
as President Obama, Republicans as well as Democrats, wants to keep the 
interest rate at the rate it is now for new loans, 3.4 percent, for 
another year. But it is $7 a month in savings. It is important to know 
that.
  It is also important to know that there is an easy way to get this 
done. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would 
keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent for these 40 percent of new loans 
for one more year. All the majority leader has to do is bring up the 
House-passed bill and enact it here in the Senate. In other words, we 
agree on extending the interest rate. We only have a difference of 
opinion about how to pay for it.
  I have offered an alternative supported by many Republicans, which is 
the same as the House bill, which simply says we want to keep the 
interest rate where it is for another year, 3.4 percent, and we want to 
do the logical thing to pay for it. We want to give back to students 
the money that the government is taking from them to help pay for the 
new health care law.
  You may think: what in the world does the health care bill have to do 
with student loans? That is what many of us thought when the health 
care law was being debated. Because, what our friends on the other side 
of the aisle did during the health care law debate was take over the 
whole student loan program and almost turn the U.S. Secretary of 
Education into the U.S. banking commissioner. He has the job of making 
more than $100 billion in new student loans every year. Their idea was 
the government can make these loans better than the banks. Our friends 
on the other side of the aisle said to the students: The banks are 
overcharging you. We are going to take it over and we will be doing you 
a favor.
  What did the Democrats do? They took it over, but they didn't do the 
students a favor. According to the Congressional Budget Office, there 
was $61 billion of savings from taking over the loan program, much of 
which was money that the students should not have been paying. When the 
federal government took it over, what did the Democrats do? They spent 
it on other programs, all except for $10 billion, including $8.7 
billion helping to pay for the new health care law.
  The way the Congressional Budget Office looks at it, $61 billion in 
savings resulted from--and these are my words--the government borrowing 
money at 2.8 percent interest and loaning it to students at 6.8 percent 
interest. We now want to take that profit from overcharging students 
and give it back to students. That is the way to pay for extending the 
3.4 percent interest rate that we are talking about for another year.
  We are in agreement on this. Republicans as well as Democrats, 
Governor Romney as well as President Obama, say keep the 3.4 percent 
rate at 3.4 percent for another year. Students should know that it does 
not affect anybody who has a loan today and that it will save you $7 a 
month for a new subsidized loan. We want to do that. But the way we 
want to pay for it is by giving back the money that the other side of 
the aisle took from you to help pay for the health care bill. That is 
the right way to do it, instead of the typical reaction we often hear 
from the other side, which is we have something we want to do so we 
will simply raise taxes on people and businesses creating jobs in the 
middle of a recession.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Tennessee. 
No one is as knowledgeable in education programs as he, the former 
Secretary of Education, and someone who has a deep commitment to 
education, not only with respect to his remarks on charter schools but 
on education in all ways. But he refers to what the House has done. The 
House, in the Ryan budget, maintains this increase, this doubling of 
the interest rate. They foresaw, anticipated, and supported the 
increase to 6.8 percent. Only recently have they apparently had a 
change of heart and decided that is not appropriate.
  The other aspect I think is interesting to note about the House is 
they have proposed significant reductions in tax rates and they have 
said they would pay for them by closing loopholes. This is one of the 
most egregious loopholes that you can find and yet, of course, they 
will not use this to pay for something which makes a great deal of 
sense--which they now agree there should be no doubling of the student 
interest rate.
  The Senator is absolutely right, this doubling will not apply to 
loans that are outstanding. It applies to loans going forward. But if 
we establish the principle which was embedded in the Ryan House budget, 
which I think was supported by most, if not all, of my colleagues on 
the other side, that this rate is going to be doubled to 6.8 percent 
going forward, that is going to have a significant impact on students 
who have years to go in college and on people who are contemplating 
going to college. So the $6 or $7 it may be per month becomes 
significant overall.
  Again, we can get into a discussion about where does this money come 
from ultimately in terms of was it part of funds for health care, et 
cetera. But we are facing the choice today of helping students and 
closing an egregious loophole--one that benefits the wealthiest 
Americans; it has been criticized by the Wall Street Journal, 
criticized by Robert Novak, the late columnist--or practically going in 
and targeting prevention programs. I think we conceptually agree if we 
don't get a handle on prevention of diabetes, of cancer, of diseases 
that are costing us billions of dollars, then our task to deal with 
health care will be immensely more difficult. It is very clear.
  What is also very clear is, I think, procedurally the answer is quite 
straightforward. Let's get on to the bill. Let us go ahead and put 
these two different proposals on the floor and take a vote. I hope the 
proposal to close the loophole would pass. But if it did not, at least 
we would be in a position of preventing the doubling of interest rates 
on student loans.
  With great respect to the Senator from Tennessee, I hope we can move 
forward, have a vote on the different proposals to pay for it, and then 
move forward and let people know that their rates will not be doubled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly support this legislation, S. 
2343, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act. I appreciate 
the leadership particularly of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who has 
been so eloquent on this subject. I also would note that Senator 
Alexander and I have worked together on a host of issues. I think he 
brings great expertise to this discussion as well.
  The bottom line for me is that millions of young people are hurting 
right now in America. They are up to their eyeballs in debt and they 
cannot find good-paying jobs.
  For example, we have seen in our home State, according to the Oregon 
Employment Department, that the overall unemployment rate last year was 
9.4 percent but was 19 percent for workers age 16 to 24. I also note we 
have seen that the labor participation for young people has declined as 
well.
  We have an enormous array of challenges in front of us. The reason 
that this legislation, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike 
Act, is so important is that it allows us to achieve two important 
objectives. First, it puts us in a position to hold the line on student 
debt. If you are a sophomore in college, for example, and you have 
already incurred some debt and you want to finish school, then you want 
to get a degree in a field where you will get a job that pays a good 
wage. Without this legislation you are going to incur still more 
debt. So this legislation ought to be supported because it holds the 
line on debt, and by doing so it helps us achieve a very important 
objective: to increase the opportunity for young people to access 
higher education across the country. And historically whether it has 
been through Pell grants or Stafford loans and the like, we've always 
said to young people, try

[[Page S3005]]

to get to college. Families sitting around kitchen tables and in their 
living rooms have said this for years. Work hard in high school and try 
to get into college. And I have supported, here in the Senate, policies 
that increase access to a good education. By holding the line on debt, 
we can take steps to achieve an important part of higher education 
policy, and that is expanding access to higher education.

  The second benefit of this legislation, in my view, is that by 
holding the line on debt we increase the opportunity for young people 
to get more value out of their education. The reason I bring this up is 
because my sense is that future policy in the higher education field is 
going to be about marrying these two objectives. Let's support this 
important legislation, S. 2343, to expand access, and use it as a 
foundation to move on to the next step of education policy, which is to 
get more value out of the education a young person pursues.
  The reason I feel that way is that all over my State I am going to 
high schools and community colleges and talking with students who are 
thinking about both of those principles, access and value.
  For example, at Blue Mountain Community College in Pendleton I met a 
young man who is taking 20 credits at school, working at Arby's full 
time as a manager, and he is already concerned about the debt he is 
racking up. He said to me: As I get my education, how will I know that 
I have laid the groundwork for being able to get a good-paying job? I 
told him, just as I am suggesting to the Senate today, that I am going 
to support efforts to expand student aid and make sure we hold down 
debt for young people. I described what we are dealing with on the 
floor of the Senate.
  I also told him I have introduced a piece of legislation with my 
colleague on the other side of the aisle, Marco Rubio, called the 
Student Right To Know Before You Go Act. This bill will make it 
possible for students all across the country to get information about 
the expected average annual earnings after graduation, the rates of 
remedial enrollment for a particular field at a particular college, the 
average costs both before and after financial aid, and the prospects of 
a student earning a good wage after achieving a particular degree at a 
particular school. With this legislation we lay the foundation for what 
I think will be the education policy of the future.
  We will ensure that students have access and ensure that they get 
more value out of their education and get more value out of the loans 
and other debt that they have to pay back. And the two go hand in hand. 
I ran into students who were juniors, for example, at colleges in my 
State and already owe $60,000. Without this legislation, those juniors 
are probably going to reup for a loan, and they are going to have to 
pay more, and that has the effect of reducing access to higher 
education. Paying more, it seems, is also going to reduce the 
opportunity for students to buy a bit more value out of their education 
as we try to get them better information with respect to the value of 
specific degree programs at specific schools. This type of information 
is now impossible to find. Suffice it to say, these two judgments, both 
with respect to the debt and the value of what they have pursued in 
terms of their college degree, are going to color their decisions for 
the rest of their lives.
  One of the students I met in Oregon recently as I talked about this 
issue was interested in getting a medical degree. And as we have talked 
about health care issues--which the President of the Senate and I have 
both been very interested in over the years--one of the questions he 
asked me was how was he going to be able to get a medical degree 
initially and what would happen to him when he got out of medical 
school with all of this debt hanging over his head. I didn't want to 
chill his enthusiasm, but we know that if a young person comes out of 
medical school with an enormous amount of debt, there is a pretty good 
chance at some point they are going to have to pass some of that debt 
on to their patients, which means we are going to see medical costs for 
a lot of people in our country escalate still higher.
  So the fact that we have these debts and the fact that it is hard for 
young people to purchase value in their education is going to have 
remarkable ripples all through our country for years and years ahead.
  I am going to close simply by way of saying this: We have seen young 
people contribute to our economy. The President of the Senate shares an 
interest with this Senator in technology. Technology has been a big 
source of jobs in States such as Minnesota and Oregon. This has been a 
real economic engine for our country. Think about who brought us 
Facebook and Google and Twitter and YouTube. A disproportionate amount 
of the creative talent has been young people.
  So we must first take steps to hold the line on debt--and that is to 
pass Senator Harkin's and Senator Reid's bill--so we don't say to 
college sophomores and juniors, we don't care if they rack up any more 
debt when we know how much heartache it is going to bring to them. Then 
we can move on to the next step, which is empowering students and 
families to be able to get the maximum amount of value from their 
education. If we don't take these steps I think we will have let the 
country down in this area at a crucial time.
  We understand that higher education is one of the principal paths, if 
not the best path, to success for many students. It is not for every 
student, but certainly for millions. And education has enabled many 
young people to contribute to technology which has been, as I 
described, a real spark for our economy.
  So I see other colleagues waiting to speak, and I only urge 
colleagues to pass this legislation, S. 2343, to ensure that we don't 
heap more debt onto the backs of students in college now and who might 
be reupping on those loans and wondering if they can afford it. Then as 
we expand access, let's look at taking additional steps to ensure that 
our young people get more value for their college education.
  Senator Rubio and I have teamed up on a bill that I think addresses 
that question, the Student Right To Know Before You Go Act. Going to 
that next step and adding more value to a young person's education when 
they are armed with the facts requires that we lay the foundation of 
access to a good education, which I think should be required when so 
many young people are hurting.
  I went through the statistics, and it requires that we pass S. 2343.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to also speak 
about preventing student loan interest rates from doubling from 3.4 
percent to 6.8 percent. I am disappointed that partisan gamesmanship is 
threatening the financial futures of students in North Carolina and 
around the country.
  In North Carolina we are very proud of our 16 excellent public 
universities and 58 outstanding community colleges. In addition, dozens 
of the best private colleges and universities in the Nation also call 
North Carolina home. Our excellence in higher education sets North 
Carolina apart.
  Business owners I talked to routinely told me that our highly 
educated and highly skilled workforce is what attracted their companies 
to North Carolina. There is no doubt that the strength of our economy 
going forward depends on the continued strength of our educational 
system. However, the cost of college continues to rise in North 
Carolina and across the country. If Congress does not act before July 
1, more than 160,000 North Carolina students will be saddled with an 
additional $1,000 in student loan debt.
  According to the project on student debt, more than half of North 
Carolina's 300,000 students at 4-year colleges and universities 
borrowed money to pay for their education. On average these students 
graduated with more than $21,000 in debt. That debt has real 
consequences for our graduates and for North Carolina's economy. With 
this debt to pay off, young entrepreneurs are less likely to take a 
chance starting a small business. They are less likely to buy a new 
car, and they are less likely to buy a home. This only hurts our 
economy. Keeping interest rates low will go a long way to ensuring that 
young people can afford their student loan payments when they graduate.
  I recently heard from a freshman at UNC Charlotte about how concerned

[[Page S3006]]

she already was about the debt she was piling up when she graduates in 
4 years. She cannot imagine what would happen if interest rates double. 
Perhaps she would have to drop out altogether.
  A student at Western Carolina University recently wrote to me, while 
studying for finals, asking that we please prevent a doubling of his 
student loan interest rates. So in the midst of preparing for final 
exams, this young man was worrying about the final bill that he will 
receive after graduating. He said doubling the Stafford loan interest 
rate would severely hurt his ability to continue his education. He 
wants to study cell biology.
  In a global 21st-century economy, the sciences are exactly the types 
of fields that we need our students to excel in so we can compete with 
China and other foreign countries. We should be helping these young 
people succeed, not throwing up barriers that get in the way.
  I am also hearing from parents. A mom with three children e-mailed me 
recently. Her oldest child will be starting college in 2 years. She is 
already worried about the debt that her children will incur, and she 
certainly is requesting that we not double the interest rate on this 
debt.
  Our students deserve a fighting chance when they graduate. We 
shouldn't put them thousands of dollars behind before they even reach 
the starting line. I will do my part to ensure students in North 
Carolina have the chance to thrive after graduating.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation that 
will prevent student interest rate loans from doubling.
  I yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand we are debating the motion 
to proceed to S. 2343, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act 
of 2012; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge my 
colleagues to vote to proceed to this important legislation. I was 
disappointed to see many of my Republican colleagues voted against 
allowing debate and amendment on this legislation. I have heard 
Senators from both sides of the aisle acknowledge the need to prevent 
the July 1 rate increase on the Stafford loans, the subsidized loans. 
So it is difficult to understand their unwillingness to even consider 
the bill and have a thoughtful debate and an opportunity for amendment 
which will allow us to keep these interest rates low for college 
students in all of our States.
  Members may disagree about the best way to pay for keeping the rates 
at 3.4 percent, but we need to go ahead and proceed to the legislation 
and pass legislation to accomplish this. If Senators have different 
proposals, they can offer them. But by blocking debate, we, obviously, 
cannot get to a solution of this problem.
  The Democrats have proposed to pay for the legislation by closing a 
tax loophole that people use to avoid paying Social Security and 
Medicare taxes. That is the so-called S corporation payroll tax 
loophole. This proposal would close the loophole for S corporations for 
which 75 percent of the corporation's income is attributable to the 
services of three or fewer shareholders.
  This loophole allows, for example, an individual lawyer or a lobbyist 
to set up an S corporation to make millions of dollars in fees and to 
not pay payroll taxes on nearly all that income. All he has to do is 
give himself a cash dividend from the corporation instead of paying 
himself wages. This is not a fair arrangement.
  To be clear, not all small businesses are gaming the system in this 
way and are not permitted to game the system in this way. This loophole 
is not available to businesses that are organized as sole 
proprietorships or as partnerships. Those small businesses are paying 
their fair share of taxes.
  By contrast to this way of paying for the continuation of the low 
interest on student loans, my Republican colleagues have opted for a 
very different approach. They offset the cost by using the Prevention 
and Public Health Fund. In my view, this is a misguided approach. The 
prevention fund is not a slush fund, as it has been called by many. 
Instead, it is a fund used to help reduce chronic disease such as 
diabetes and heart disease and to fund immunization programs for 
children. This is a critical fund that is used to lower long-term 
health costs and improve health outcomes. In my view, eliminating this 
fund would simply increase health risks and, ultimately, increase 
health care costs in this country.
  It is very clear Democrats and Republicans have a fundamental 
difference in our approach to how we should maintain student loan 
interest rates. However, as I said before, it is important we get to 
the bill, we proceed to vote for cloture on this bill, so we can 
discuss a path forward and consider amendments, if individual Senators 
wish to propose amendments.
  Preparing students for an education is essential for this country's 
global competitiveness. It is imperative we provide students the tools 
they need to succeed in this very fast changing economy. This includes 
access to a high-quality education, which will enable us to train the 
next generation of Americans for jobs in high-technology fields.
  This past Tuesday I spoke at a luncheon that was put on by a 
foundation that supports one of our community colleges in New Mexico. 
It is clear we have many students who are working very hard to make 
ends meet and to stay in school so they can obtain the skills they need 
to earn a good wage, to pursue a constructive career. There are many 
areas of our economy where these types of trained workers are needed.
  One area which is obvious in my State and nationwide is in health 
care. We need to train more nurses. One statistic used in this talk 
last Tuesday was that over the next 8 years, between now and 2020, we 
are going to have to add 700,000 more nurses to the health care field 
to meet the needs of the baby boom generation. In addition to those 
700,000, we are going to have to hire an additional 500,000 just to 
replace those who retire from the nursing profession. So we have 1.2 
million nurses who are going to have to be hired in this country over 
the next 8 years. We need to train those people.
  There are many young people in this country who would like to have 
that training. They need student loans in order to be able to cover the 
costs of that training. That is why this is such an important debate.
  Student loan debt has, for the first time in our history, surpassed 
credit card debt. Today this debt exceeds $1 trillion. The average 
college graduate leaves school with more than $25,000 in loans.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, college costs at State 
schools are rising and have been rising at an alarming rate. These 
increased costs far outpace the increased costs of medical care. We are 
often giving speeches on this Senate floor about the high increase, the 
excessive increase in medical care costs. In fact, the cost of college 
for many students is rising even faster. The same thing can be said 
about gasoline. I see my colleagues rush to the floor whenever the 
price of gasoline begins moving up--and with good reason. It is a major 
burden on U.S. families and Americans everywhere. But the growth in 
these costs pale in comparison to the growth we are seeing in the cost 
of education.
  The cost of tuition and fees has nearly sextupled since 1985. This is 
particularly troublesome for students from low-income families.
  If we allow interest rates to double, there are 7.4 million students 
nationwide who will see an increase in the cost of their student loans 
beginning on the 1st of July. This has a direct impact on students and 
on families because subsidized Stafford loans are need based, and they 
are typically designed and focused on helping low- and moderate-income 
students.

  In my State of New Mexico, about 40,000--the specific number I have 
been given is 39,875 but about 40,000 students will see an increase in 
interest rates if we do not take action before the 1st of July.

[[Page S3007]]

  There are nearly 10,000 undergraduates at New Mexico State University 
who will feel the effects of doubling rates and there are thousands of 
students at the University of New Mexico who will also see these 
increases.
  This is true of our smaller schools in New Mexico as well. The school 
I was speaking at last week was Eastern New Mexico University in 
Roswell. There are 222 students there who took out Stafford student 
loans during this current academic year.
  The Department of Education estimates that the average student would 
pay as much as an additional $1,000 per year for their student loans 
unless we can keep this interest rate where it is. Not only would 
incoming students be affected, current students would also feel the 
increase as they originate a new loan for the new academic year. The 
additional burden on our students would be substantial.
  Students and families understand the additional increase in costs. In 
the last few weeks, I have been hearing from constituents all over my 
State asking us to prevent this rate increase.
  One student from Gallup, NM, wrote to me saying:

       Give a break to the future of this country and to the 
     millions of students and families who need the relief from 
     the debt of college.

  Another family from Albuquerque wrote to me saying:

       I write to urge you to vote so that student loan interest 
     rates DO NOT go up. In this recession, more than ever, people 
     of all ages are depending on education as a means of gaining 
     employment, and depending at least in part on student loans.

  So our constituents are asking us to take action. By doing so we can 
continue to provide students with stability as they enter and complete 
their education.
  A high-quality educational system unleashes the potential of our 
students. We need world-class problem solvers and thinkers if we are 
going to remain competitive. By investing in American students, we can 
grow our economy and build the middle class.
  Let's move ahead with consideration of this bill. If a majority of 
Senators wish to change the way the bill is paid for, then we can 
consider that amendment. But we should not refuse to allow the bill to 
come to the Senate floor for debate and amendment.

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I have 
week after week since the health care law has been passed, with a 
doctor's second opinion about the law that I have great concerns with. 
I do that as a doctor who practiced medicine for 25 years, took care of 
families in Wyoming, was involved with programs aimed at prevention of 
disease, early detention of disease, and early treatment of disease. I 
come to the floor to talk specifically about a portion of the health 
care law that has been discussed quite a bit in the last week or two on 
the Senate floor.
  Congress has talked a lot about the so-called Prevention and Public 
Health Fund included in the President's health care law. When I looked 
at this health care law initially--and I continue to do so--I asked the 
question, is this health care law the best way to give patients the 
care they need, from a doctor they want, at a cost they can afford? I 
believe it has failed in so many ways to do that, which is why I 
continue to work to try to repeal and replace this health care law.
  When we get to the specifics of this Prevention and Public Health 
Fund, the President and Democrats have claimed that the purpose of the 
fund was to promote wellness, prevent disease, and protect against 
public health emergencies. All of us want to promote wellness, prevent 
disease, and protect against public health emergencies. I know how 
important those things are as a doctor. I know how important it is to 
the point that for over two decades in Wyoming, I was medical director 
of a program called Wyoming Health Fairs, where we provided low-cost 
health care screenings to people all across the Cowboy State. It is a 
very important program. People have continued to write letters to me 
over the decades about the fact that going to a health fair and 
learning about how to prevent diseases, about early detection of 
problems, and how they feel either they or members of their families 
have had their lives saved as a result of the services provided all 
throughout those communities aimed at prevention and early detention of 
problems--tests such as blood pressure, PSA tests, people learning 
about how to examine themselves, how to get a mammogram--a lost-cost or 
free mammogram--all of these things that are aimed at prevention. These 
gave people the tools they needed to make decisions about their health 
and their health care--not just for the patient but also to help their 
medical providers.
  Instead of helping Americans prevent health problems, the President's 
new law actually uses this so-called prevention fund as a Washington 
slush fund. In fact, the new health law provided about $15 billion for 
this fund from 2010 to 2019, and then beyond that about $2 billion 
every year in annual appropriation of funds to go toward this same 
slush fund--$2 billion a year forever.
  Who will control the fund? The Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. Even though this law has only been in place for 2 years, we 
have already witnessed how the Obama administration officials have 
allowed this money to be wasted. Among other things, we hear of a 
health clinic using the funding to spay and neuter pets. That is right, 
to spay and neuter pets.
  The Minnesota Department of Health used $3.6 million to create at 
least four regional food policy councils. And taxpayers will be happy 
to learn--or will not be so happy to learn, of course--that their hard-
earned money helped a county in California secure a ban on new fast 
food restaurants.
  I have nothing against food policy councils or spaying and neutering 
pets, but when the U.S. Government is borrowing approximately 40 cents 
out of every dollar that we spend, and when we have a national debt in 
the area of $15 trillion, Washington should not waste Americans' hard-
earned taxpayer dollars. But we continue to do it, and this fund is a 
key example.
  According to the nonpartisan CBO, eliminating the prevention fund 
would save about $13.6 billion over the next 10 years. The fact is 
Congress already funds many prevention programs--prevention programs 
with a proven track record of success. Examples include cancer 
prevention, tobacco prevention, and a host of other programs.
  Republicans have supported, and will continue to support, these 
critical prevention programs--cancer prevention, tobacco prevention, 
and working on heart disease. However, the record is clear that the so-
called prevention fund in the health care law is wasteful and 
duplicative. It doesn't help people stay well or become well.
  Senator Alexander from Tennessee introduced legislation that would 
eliminate this slush fund and use the savings to maintain student loan 
interest rates at 3.4 percent.
  Under current law, students who receive subsidized Stafford student 
loans will see rates increase shortly to 6.8 percent, unless, of 
course, Congress acts. I am ready to act. Whether you are Republican or 
Democrat, liberal or conservative, people generally agree that 
preventing this rate increase is an important priority. The difference 
is how do we pay for it.
  The majority leader wants to raise taxes on small business owners. He 
says that is the better way forward. But there is a better way forward 
than raising taxes on the people who create jobs, at a time when we 
have over 8-percent unemployment and last month's job numbers are 
abysmal. Only 125,000 new jobs were created, but 3 times that amount of 
people quit looking for jobs completely. For every one new job, three 
people quit looking for jobs at all. To raise taxes on the people who 
are creating jobs in this country is the wrong way to go.
  Senator Alexander's proposal stops the rate increase by eliminating 
this prevention slush fund. His bill uses the rest of the funding for 
deficit reduction. I have cosponsored that legislation.
  I think it is also important to know that the President has already 
agreed

[[Page S3008]]

to use his slush fund to offset other spending. In September of 2011, 
the President proposed reducing the slush fund by $3.5 billion. In 
February, part of the payroll tax cut signed by the President contained 
a $4.5 billion cut from his slush fund. Finally, in March, the 
President's 2013 budget proposed cutting the fund by another $5 
billion.

  It is ironic that the President of the United States and Washington 
Democrats now oppose using money from their so-called prevention slush 
fund. If the White House and Democrats in Congress want to ensure that 
student loan rates stay low, they will cut this wasteful program and 
use the money to help the next generation of Americans.
  We do know that young people coming out of college today are, on 
average, having a debt of about $25,000; and whether the interest rate 
is zero or 3.4 percent or 6.8 percent, they are still coming out with a 
huge debt, at a time when we know 53 percent of the people coming out 
of school can't find a job or cannot find a job consistent with their 
level of education. We also read that 40 percent are going back home to 
live; some are returning home instead of going out into the workplace.
  It is time to focus on the economy, on getting people back to work, 
and it is time to agree that we need to keep the interest rates low; 
that we ought to pay for it with money that is there, which can easily 
be used. We should not raise taxes on job creators at a time when the 
country is in this sort of economic condition.
  I continue to come to the floor week after week to talk about 
findings in the health care law. Some things are unintended 
consequences, and some things are money tucked away for other purposes. 
It is hard for Americans to ever forget Nancy Pelosi saying that first 
you have to pass the health care law before you get to find out what is 
in it. The more the American people find out what is in it, the less 
they like it--to the point that 67 percent of Americans feel that the 
health care law should be totally or at least partially found 
unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court looks to make their ruling in 
the next months ahead.
  This is a health care law that, in my opinion, is bad for patients, 
bad for providers--the nurses and doctors who take care of the 
patients--and it is terrible for the American taxpayers. This is a time 
when we need to repeal and replace this health care law. Now there is a 
way to use one of the provisions within it to fund and make sure that 
we do not raise interest rates for the students in this country, so 
they can get the education they need and, hopefully, find a job and not 
punish those who have tried to provide jobs to these graduates.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on a motion to proceed to S. 2343.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to 
proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, later I want to speak for a few minutes 
about our colleague Senator Lugar.
  First, I want to comment about what the Senator from Wyoming was 
saying on the health bill.
  Very quickly, I could not disagree more with the Senator from Wyoming 
in his comments with respect to the health care bill. This morning we 
had a meeting with Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who was outlining to us 
all of the gains we are making with respect to health care in America 
as a result of the legislation.
  What is interesting is that our colleagues who keep coming to the 
floor and saying repeal the health care bill never offer alternatives 
to Americans. I hope Americans who are buying into this notion that 
somehow the health care bill doesn't serve them because they are angry 
about one thing or another will look at what the health care bill does 
because, in point of fact, if you were to repeal the health care bill, 
and they have no alternative to replace it, here are some of the things 
that happen: One, you immediately add $2 trillion to the deficit of our 
Nation. Bang, done deal. That goes right away on that. The health care 
bill is judged by the CBO to reduce the deficit. It has specific 
savings in it. If you get rid of it, those savings go away and, bang, 
the deficit goes up.
  No. 2, 47 million to 50-some million Americans who have no health 
care or didn't have it before the bill will return to the status of 
having no health care.
  Now, does everybody in America think it is better to have 50-some 
million Americans walking around without health care who, when they 
walk into a hospital--perhaps they get hit by a car or have an accident 
and go to a hospital--receive care that everybody is paying for but 
they are paying for it in the most inefficient way possible? The burden 
is being paid for by people who have the health care. It goes into 
their premiums. It isn't shared by people buying their insurance and 
sharing the risk of getting sick. So all of a sudden, if you get rid of 
the health care bill, we return America to the days when millions of 
Americans had no care. And guess what happens when they have no care. 
They jam the emergency rooms because that is the only place to get the 
care. The emergency room becomes the place of primary care. But my 
colleagues do not answer that question. They never deal with reality. 
They deal with politics and ideology and they throw a lot of baloney at 
people.
  The fact is, if we were to get rid of the health care bill, all those 
people who used to get sick and would get a letter from their insurance 
company saying: Gee, sorry to hear you have terminal cancer, but you 
are not covered--and that is what happened all the time in America--
that would start happening again. People were thrown off their policies 
that they had been paying for for years, and all of a sudden they had 
no coverage. But they do not address that.
  There is another issue: preexisting conditions. Again and again and 
again, people would be denied the ability to buy health care coverage 
because they had a preexisting condition of some kind. So if 10 years 
ago someone had a cancer, even if they were cured of their cancer, the 
insurance company could either refuse them or charge them a higher set 
of premiums. People were denied coverage--they just didn't get it. 
Women who were pregnant and were applying for insurance heard: Oh, 
sorry, that is a preexisting condition. You are pregnant. We are not 
going to cover that.
  So in America we drove people into poverty for a long period of time. 
They had to sell their homes or sell down everything they had to become 
impoverished in order to get to a point where they could get some help.
  What about kids in school today? Under the health care bill, up until 
the age of 26, a child can now be covered by their parents' program. It 
is not free, it has to be paid for, but they can be covered by it. That 
would be eliminated.
  So all of a sudden we would have a whole bunch of people who would be 
automatically eliminated and going out fighting to get insurance in the 
marketplace.
  Let me tell you what else happens. There are a whole bunch of reforms 
to the health care system that our friends never talk about. Today 
Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, laid out 
for us the enormous gains we are making in Medicare fraud. We are 
beginning to make huge savings for people. The average senior is now 
saving over $4,000 on their health care bills because of what has been 
put in place by the health care bill. There are a whole series of 
things. I don't have them all here at my disposal now because I wasn't 
planning to talk about this when I came to the floor, but there are a 
series of reforms about how we pay hospitals, bundling the payments to 
a hospital, requiring greater accountability from hospitals. I mean, 
don't we want greater accountability from hospitals? That will vanish. 
That will be gone if we do away with the health care bill.
  We also have greater coordination of care for patients from the 
beginning of their private care through their admissions and into their 
discharges. What happens today is there is no coordination of that 
care, and so a lot of people are discharged, and the readmission rate 
is staggering because there isn't the coordination between their 
postoperative, postsurgery care and their

[[Page S3009]]

primary physicians and the hospitals. Now there are a number of 
different pilot projects in place to help coordinate that.
  Similarly, we are coordinating the care of what are called dual 
eligibles--the people who are eligible for Medicare but also eligible 
for Medicaid. That care has not been well coordinated, so we have huge 
duplication, enormous costs we don't need, and the result is a waste of 
money. All of that is being eliminated and/or reduced to a significant 
level.
  There are so many other examples. Let me cite another one. The 
Senator talked about wanting to take money out of preventive medicine. 
Preventive medicine? We are told by the doctors, who are the experts 
and who deal with diabetes, that if we had early screening, which comes 
by having health care coverage, we could eliminate an enormous amount--
maybe as much as $100 billion--of surgery costs and dialysis costs as a 
result of people not discovering they have this ailment until it is too 
late for treatment by the more accessible and easier means. There are 
some oral medications and other things people can take to deal with 
this disease, but they have to get there at the early stage. If they 
get there too late, they wind up having to do amputations of limbs or 
the patient winds up on dialysis, all of which is far more expensive.
  There are also pilot projects in the health care bill for helping 
people receive care at home and not be forced into a higher priced care 
environment, such as a nursing home or a longer term care kind of 
environment. This allows them to receive care at home and be in the 
dignity of their own home and independent and, obviously, with much 
less cost. All of those things would be wiped out by this notion that 
we are just going to get rid of this bill.
  What this whole notion is built on is the early negative branding--
very effective negative branding--that took place and was wrapped 
around the so-called death panels and the other things, none of which 
are in this legislation. It is not in it. So this is political. That is 
why they call it ObamaCare, not health care. They call it ObamaCare to 
make it a pejorative and to do their best to try to wrap it up in the 
negativity of politics in our country today. And it is a tragedy 
because it doesn't do justice to the kind of thinking that ought to go 
into and did go into this bill in terms of how we do things that really 
create competition in the marketplace and allow people to get better 
health care.
  What is astonishing is that we spend something like, I think, $15,000 
per patient in America. I think that is the average cost. There are 
countries spending half of that and a lot of countries spending around 
$11,000 a patient that, I am sad to say, are getting better health 
outcomes than we get in the United States of America. The United States 
of America is not No. 1 in health outcomes for the money we are 
spending in the system, and there are a whole lot of reasons for that, 
but that is part of why this reform is so critical to our country.

  I could say a lot more about this, but I am not going to say it now. 
Every time we hear from people who are just talking now about how we 
have to get rid of the health care bill, we have to stand and make it 
clear to people why this bill is good. A lot of Americans have not 
heard enough about how this legislation works for them, works for the 
country, and will improve our system. Is it the cure-all--no pun 
intended--of the health care system? No. I don't pretend it is. We will 
have to do more. We will have to tweak it. But it is a beginning step, 
with critical components that take 4 and 5 and 6 years to put into 
place so that we can get the full measure of their impact.
  I will say this. We have it in Massachusetts. We have it now, and 
businesses are not complaining. In fact, we have one of the best 
economies of any State in the country. I think our unemployment rate is 
now down around 4.9, 5 percent, somewhere in that vicinity. So we have 
this program. We have had it for a few years now, and 98.6 percent of 
the people in our State are covered. It has been mandatory since the 
beginning, and it is working. It is beginning to bring down costs in 
the individual marketplace. The premiums have gone down by something 
like 45, 50 percent.
  So I think we have to look at facts, as we do on a whole lot of 
issues here facing this country today, rather than continuing this 
silly talking past each other, completely contrived, political, 
ideological debate that is calculated to win power and not calculated 
necessarily to serve the best interests of our Nation. I hope we are 
going to engage on this over these next months, and I look forward to 
defending this health care bill because I think the bill is good for 
America. I think this bill, while it obviously needs some refinement, 
some changes, and some tweaking here and there, has accomplished an 
enormous amount already and is on track to accomplish an enormous 
amount going forward.
  I think the administration has a much better story to tell about it 
than has been told, and I am glad the President has said he looks 
forward to going out and talking to the country about it because I 
believe that as the country learns more about it, in fact, they will 
say: Wow, that makes sense; that seems like a pretty sensible thing to 
do.
  For our opponents who want to just get rid of the legislation, they 
have an absolute obligation to put the full deal on the table about 
what they are going to do in return, and not just Medicare, with the 
Ryan proposal--which makes it more expensive for seniors and undoes 
Medicare as we know it, not just that part of it--but the whole of it. 
How are they going to cover the uninsured? What will they do to take 
care of all those medical institutions that are struggling to teach 
doctors for the future? How are they going to hold those folks in a way 
that continues medical education in our country and so forth? They owe 
it to the Nation to answer those questions.
  Mr. President, that concludes the portion of my remarks I wanted to 
make in response to the Senator from Wyoming.


                    Tribute to Senator Richard Lugar

  Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to share a few thoughts, 
not about the results of the election last night in Indiana per se, but 
I do wish to talk about the consequences for the Senate of the loss of 
Senator Lugar as of next year and particularly for the Foreign 
Relations Committee.
  It is no secret that Dick Lugar's loss last night is going to be 
particularly felt by all of us who have had the privilege of working 
with him on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whether he was the 
chairman of the committee--and I served under him when he was 
chairman--or whether as a member of the committee and the ranking 
member, as he is now and as I am now privileged to serve with him.
  Whether we agreed with him or not, whether he had the gavel or he 
didn't have the gavel, Dick Lugar had an approach to the Senate and to 
governing that was always the same: He was serious, he was thoughtful, 
and he refused to allow this march to an orthodoxy about ideology and 
partisan politics to get in the way of what he thought was the 
responsibility of a Senator and, indeed, the need of the country to 
have people come together and find the common ground. He dug deeply 
into some of foreign policy's most vexing issues, and his expertise on 
complicated issues that were honed over 36 years really can't be 
replicated. That is something we are going to lose--the institutional 
experience, the judgment, and the wisdom of the approach on some of 
those issues, such as the constitutional questions he would call into 
account when no one else would, the question of not being stampeded by 
popular opinion with respect to the use of force in one instance or 
another. All of those are essential to making this institution live up 
to its full capacity.
  Already since last night's news, we have been hearing again and again 
on some of the news shows and elsewhere about the work of the Senator 
from Indiana on nuclear nonproliferation. It is no secret his Nunn-
Lugar efforts have become almost shorthand for bipartisanship in 
foreign policy, and they should be recognized. But I want to emphasize 
here and now that is not all Senator Lugar contributed to this field of 
foreign policy. He is a leading expert on some of the urgent issues 
that are off the beaten path, from food security and the eradication of 
hunger worldwide, to his work with Joe Biden and then with me, I am 
privileged to say, to change our relationship with

[[Page S3010]]

Pakistan, helping prevent their economy from unraveling and encouraging 
them to cooperate with interests vital to America--indeed, to the 
stability of that region--and to establishing what he called a 
``deeper, broader, long-term strategic engagement'' with Pakistan.
  I am privileged to say, for me, the personal journey with Dick Lugar 
began before that, and I think it epitomizes who he is and why he will 
be missed. It has nothing to do with ideology.
  Back in 1980, shortly after I came here--I was elected in 1984, and I 
started on the Foreign Relations Committee in 1985. Right away, we 
began to work together on the issue of the Philippines, free and fair 
elections in the Philippines. I had traveled over there a number of 
times as a freshman Senator. I had met with Ferdinand Marcos. I was 
concerned about the torture taking place and the political prisoners 
and other violations of rights. Yet we were sort of aiding them 
notwithstanding our values and our standards.
  Well, Dick Lugar joined with me in that effort. He didn't have any 
reason to join with a freshly minted Senator, wet behind the ears, but 
he did. Together we sort of became a team that started to focus on the 
Philippines to figure out how we could hold Marcos accountable. He was 
serious and he was fair-minded, and I saw firsthand during our trip to 
the Philippines which we made at the time of the election--after we had 
done a whole lot of groundwork to set up an accountability system for 
that election--that he had a very personal and special understanding of 
what the United States meant to the rest of the world with respect to 
our values. That cause animated this man whom we all know is dignified 
and reserved and humble but who proudly came back and recounted with 
some animation to President Reagan the difference that the United 
States of America makes when it gives voice to people's aspirations for 
freedom--and, in this case particularly, the people of the Philippines.
  The fact is it was that discussion with Ronald Reagan and the results 
that came out of the accountability in that election that forced 
Ferdinand Marcos to leave and we saw Cory Aquino come to power and the 
Philippines move back into genuine democracy.
  I saw the same commitment with Senator Lugar a number of times over 
the years, but never more so than 2 years ago when we worked together 
on the New START treaty. His wisdom and his patience was invaluable in 
laying out the case, particularly in building support across the aisle 
so we could find the path to 71 votes.
  I said then, and I say it again today, given the bitter, divisive, 
partisan, continual political squabbling that seems to dominate life in 
the city today, 71 votes is probably the equivalent of the 98 votes we 
used to get on those kinds of efforts. So I am grateful to him for his 
willingness to work to do that. He worked to give Members more time to 
work through problems, to find a way to solve individual objections. It 
reminded me of the way you actually work in what is now sometimes, 
unfortunately, sarcastically referred to as the world's greatest 
deliberative body. He deliberated and he helped us deliberate.
  I thought it was one of the finer and prouder moments of the Senate 
in recent years.
  I am confident Dick Lugar's record in our committee is going to be 
one of those which is remembered for a long time. Sadly, last night it 
was remembered in the context of Senator Fulbright, who also came to 
lose a primary in the end and paid a high price for his concern about 
global affairs and his involvement with those issues. But I think he is 
also remembered significantly for the enormous legacy he built about 
American foreign policy and how to make our country stronger.
  Dick Lugar does that, and I think he has made it clear--there is no 
doubt in the mind of anybody on our side of the aisle--that Dick Lugar 
is a conservative and his votes through the years have shown that. He 
is a proud Republican.
  But I think probably because he served as a mayor before he came 
here, he applied what we call the LaGuardia rule to foreign policy--
which is the rule that Theodore LaGuardia applied to doing things in 
New York. It didn't matter whether you were a Republican or Democrat as 
long as the streets got cleaned and the potholes got filled, and they 
didn't have any labels on them. That is pretty much the way foreign 
policies ought to be.
  It used to be under Arthur Vandenberg that we said that politics ends 
at the water's edge, and we do what is in the best interests of our 
country. Only in the last years in the Senate have I seen a complete 
diversion from that where, unfortunately--as has been true on both 
sides--politics has entered into choices people have made with respect 
to major issues of conflict, potential war and peace, and interests of 
the security of our country.
  So about 4 years ago this time, Dick Lugar received the Paul Douglas 
Award just off the Senate floor over in the Mansfield Room, and he 
summed up his approach to the Senate. I think after last night it is 
important for all of our colleagues to be mindful of his words and to 
think about them as we go forward in these next 6, 7, 8 months.
  Dick argued that bipartisanship isn't an end to itself, and it is 
sometimes mistaken for centrism and compromise when, in fact, it is the 
way he called being a constructive public servant. It is the way a 
constructive public servant approaches his or her job--with self-
reflection, discipline, and faith in the goodwill of others.
  He said:

       Particularly destructive is the misperception in some 
     quarters that governing with one vote more than 50 percent is 
     just as good or better than government with 60 or 70 percent 
     support. The problem with this thinking is that whatever is 
     won today through division is usually lost tomorrow. The 
     relationships that are destroyed and the ill will that is 
     created make subsequent achievements that much more 
     difficult. A 51 percent mentality deepens cynicisms, sharpens 
     political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of 
     good will that is critical to our survival in hard times.

  That is actually about as fundamentally, philosophically, as 
conservative as one could ask for. I think every one of us who have 
seen the difficulty of the last few years of our politics, who have 
been frustrated by the sheer inability of the institution to work, 
would agree there is nothing liberal or conservative or moderate about 
what Dick said. It is just common sense about how human nature works, 
about how people work. It seems to me we would do well to get back in 
touch.
  I often hear people talk about how we need to change the rules here 
in order to get something done. Actually, we don't. These are the same 
rules we operated with when Everett Dirksen was here, when Bob Dole was 
leader, George Mitchell was leader. But we got things done.
  In the 1990s, we balanced the budget of our Nation four times in a 
row without a constitutional amendment. It didn't take a piece of paper 
to tell us to do it or new words written in the Constitution. It took 
the common sense and courage of people on the floor of the Senate to do 
what was right. We don't have to change the rules. We have to change 
the thinking--or change the people who don't want to do it.

  But every great moment in this great institution, when people look 
back at the history with pride and point to the Missouri Compromise or 
point to Henry Clay or Daniel Webster or all these great Senators--or 
Ted Kennedy more recently and others on the other side of the aisle--
when they do that, they are talking about people who operated by the 
same rules but found the common ground because they had the 
intelligence and willpower to put the country and its interests ahead 
of everything else.
  So that is what Dick Lugar's loss last night means to us. I don't 
know who will replace him. We certainly know the cross-currents of some 
of the campaign, and we certainly know what Senator Lugar himself chose 
to say last night about his opponent's quest for more partisanship, not 
less.
  So the alarm bells have been sounded. My prayer is that this election 
year is going to help purge this country of this incredible waste of 
opportunity that we are living through.
  This Congress isn't over. For those of us who were here and remember 
1996, it bears repeating that even in Presidential years the Congress 
can actually defy conventional wisdom and get some things done. That is 
why I know that Dick Lugar is going to finish out his

[[Page S3011]]

sixth term in the Senate with the same determination and effectiveness 
that has marked every year of his service. He is going to have a lot 
more contributions to this institution that he reveres and that 
respects him so enormously.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague and friend, 
Senator Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for 
coming to the Senate floor and speaking about our mutual friend and 
colleague, Senator Dick Lugar, who serves as the ranking Republican on 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  I am a newcomer to that committee, but I am not a newcomer to my 
knowledge of Dick Lugar--who preceded my arrival in the Senate 16 years 
ago when he was well known throughout the Midwest for his extraordinary 
service as mayor of Indianapolis, where he did something that was 
miraculous--he combined and made more efficient local units of 
government, and I think the rebirth of Indianapolis is attributed to 
those early steps by Dick Lugar.
  My wife Loretta and I came to know Dick and Char personally through 
the Aspen Institute, which is an effort that I think we need to 
encourage where members of both political parties, House and Senate, 
come together to discuss foreign policy issues--no lobbyists, no 
special interests. Dick Lugar was there and always a major contributor 
when it came to issues of importance.
  Before I arrived in the Senate--while Senator Kerry was still here--
he teamed up with Senator Sam Nunn to deal with an issue which related 
literally to the peace and security of the world.
  What would happen, as the Soviet Union crumbled, to all of those 
nuclear weapons? Would they fall into the wrong hands? Would they fall 
into disrepair? And what could we do about it? Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar 
stepped up and said: We are going to work together on a bipartisan 
basis to deal with them.
  Time and time again throughout his career Dick Lugar has focused on 
issues of strategic importance to the United States and our security. I 
can't agree with Senator Kerry more. He looked for a bipartisan 
approach to so many things. We always knew he was a Hoosier 
conservative. You weren't going to push over anything when it came to 
Dick Lugar. He was strong in his values, but he always listened and he 
was always a gentleman.
  What a disappointment last night. I know Senator Kerry feels, as I 
do, that once you have been in this Chamber for a few years, you kind 
of reflect on those lions of the Senate who have come and gone, some 
because of the decision of the electorate and some because of passage 
of time and then fateful decisions that ended up with their departure. 
We think back on some of these great people.
  John Chafee. John Chafee and Dick Lugar were soulmates in terms of 
their view on the Republican side of the aisle about how to work across 
the aisle to get things done.
  A mutual friend--and I know Senator Kerry's close personal friend--
Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy's success has always reached across 
the aisle. I noticed that. Sometimes to the frustration of those on the 
Democratic side who said: We have enough votes, Ted. We don't have to 
do this. He would reach across.
  Of Bob Byrd, who used to sit right next to where Senator Kerry is 
sitting now, we think: What will the Senate be like without these great 
lions? Well, the Senate will go on. But the question is, Will we have 
learned from their example? Will we take their lives and their careers 
to build on to make this a better place or, as some have said, are we 
going to succumb to the temptation of just making this place more 
partisan, more hidebound, more dedicated to obstruction than moving 
forward?
  I know that Dick Lugar in the remaining months is going to be an 
extraordinary servant to the people of Indiana and the Nation as he has 
been throughout his career, and I look forward to seeing him back on 
the Senate floor working, as he will, for the remainder of his term. 
But it is a loss. It is a loss to the Senate that he is leaving, and it 
is a sad day on both sides of the aisle when Dick Lugar won't be part 
of the Senate in person.


                      Tribute to Senator Mark Kirk

  I would like to speak about another Republican Senator while I have 
the floor: my colleague, Mark Kirk. Some of you have seen the video.
  Mark had a stroke in January. He wrote about it in this morning's 
Chicago Tribune. He is 52 years of age, the picture of health, a Navy 
Reserve officer and a U.S. Senator from Illinois, actively engaged in 
our State, going back and forth, county to county, city to city. We 
work together on so many things. Then on that fateful day he was 
stricken, and with this stroke he suffered some very serious damage.
  I was a little bit disturbed when his physician/surgeon came out and 
said, ``Well, here is what we can expect.'' And I am not going to go 
through the graphic details, but they were all sobering to think that 
he would be limited in any way by the stroke. I was upset because I 
thought: He doesn't know Mark Kirk. That isn't going to happen. Mark is 
going to fight back. He is going to be back, and he is going to defy 
the odds in terms of stroke victims.
  Yesterday he released a video. It is inspiring. I hope everyone gets 
a chance to see it--I am sure it is readily available--showing him 
going through rehab, showing the efforts he is making to come back to 
the Senate. Mark called me earlier this week. We talked on the phone a 
couple of times since the stroke. He has been actively engaged mentally 
in everything we have done since the stroke occurred. But every day he 
tells me that he spends time on a treadmill, miles and miles walking on 
a treadmill so he will be able to come back. I told him we are on a 
different treadmill here and I am sure he wants to get back on it with 
us in the Senate.
  He will be back. He said something I think we all ought to remember. 
He said he asked the staff to count the steps from where he would park 
outside the Senate Chamber up to the Senate Chamber. They counted the 
steps and they told him 45 steps and he would be back in the Senate. He 
said the day is going to come, and I am sure it will be soon, when he 
will walk those steps, and there will be many, myself included, from 
both sides of the aisle, cheering his return to the Senate. For Mark, 
his family, his doctors, his medical staff, and all: Thank you for this 
battle. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our State. We look 
forward to your early return.
  Mark and I have a joint town meeting, Republican and Democratic, 
every Thursday morning. The people sit there politely as we discuss 
issues and love it when we disagree because we do it without getting 
angry with one another. He will be back soon, not only at those 
meetings but also covering the State of Illinois as an effective, 
engaged Senator.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time from 2 p.m. 
until 5 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders 
or their designees, and that all quorum calls in that period also be 
equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to 
allow us to move forward in the consideration of the Stop the Student 
Loan Interest Rate Hike Act so we can allow the interest rate on 
student loans to remain at its current level rather than doubling, 
which will happen on July 1, unless we take action. I come to the floor 
to express the views of many Marylanders with whom I have talked about 
the cost of higher education. We cannot allow the interest costs to go 
up. It will affect 7 million students and their families.
  We already have too much college debt that families have to incur as 
a result of the cost of a college education. We are not competitive 
with the rest of the world. We look at countries with whom we compete 
and we look at the cost of higher education in their country compared 
with what our students have to endure, and we start off behind because 
of the enormous cost to a family to afford a college education for 
their children.
  We know how important it is. You need to have a college degree in 
order

[[Page S3012]]

to be competitive in many fields today. That number of fields is 
increasing every day. Let me tell you, we have crossed the $1 trillion 
mark in debt held by families in order to afford a college education. 
Two-thirds of that debt is held by people who are under 30 years of 
age. Here they are, trying to start out in life, trying to have a 
family, trying to buy a home, and they have this large amount of debt.
  College debt now exceeds credit card debt in America. It is not 
unusual for a person graduating from a college to have $20,000, 
$30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $100,000 in debt, and even higher. If we do 
not act by July 1, the interest costs will add thousands of dollars to 
that already burdensome amount.
  The cost of a college education in America is too expensive. If we 
want to be competitive, we have to get the cost of a college education 
down. The President in his State of the Union Address talked about ways 
in which we can encourage colleges and universities to be more 
affordable for the American public. But one thing we can do is to make 
sure that the cost of borrowing is not increased. That is why it is 
particularly important that we pass this legislation.
  It is affecting family decisions as to what schools children will 
attend because of the high cost. We are just turning our economy 
around, starting to make our recovery, and now families are struggling 
to figure out how they are going to be able to afford a college 
education. We need to reduce the costs, not increase the costs, to 
families. We need a trained workforce. We need to be competitive 
internationally.
  Let me tell you what else it is affecting. We have some very talented 
people who are graduating from college and they want to go into the 
field where they are gifted, where they can make a real contribution to 
our communities, to our society, to make a difference, to answer that 
call of community service. That is what they want to do. But when they 
are saddled with this much debt and if it becomes more expensive to pay 
off that debt, they have to make a pragmatic decision about their 
career path rather than following where they can make the greatest 
contribution to society. That is how these large debts and the cost of 
paying off that debt are affecting our country.
  You might have a great researcher who can find the answer to one of 
our diseases, how we can keep a healthier society, a person who may 
want to go into research, but they know what the return of research 
will be when trying to pay off their college loans. If we do not act by 
July 1, that will be even larger. That is what we are confronted with. 
That is why it is so urgent, that is why we need to be considering this 
legislation rather than be stuck in this filibuster.
  I urge my colleague to move forward. Let's do what the Senate should 
do--consider amendments and get this process going. It is absolutely 
critical to our entire country.
  Let me talk a little bit about my experiences with Marylanders. I 
have traveled the State of Maryland. I have talked to a lot of our 
college students. I will generally talk about a lot of different 
subjects and then ask what is on their mind. They will talk about the 
cost of college education. They will talk about the fact that we need 
more grants. They talk about the fact that we need more affordable 
loans. They certainly will tell me if you are going to increase the 
interest costs on their loans, it is going to have a major impact on 
their ability to stay in college, on their ability to follow the career 
choices that they want to in life.
  Let me share with my colleagues the stories of two Marylanders who 
have contacted my office, who have contacted me in the last few days to 
tell me that this bill we are hopefully going to be able to consider 
will have a direct impact on their decisions.
  Katherine Eames is a 22-year-old single mother, with a 4-year-old son 
Jayden. Katherine has decided to go back to college to pursue her 
nursing degree and currently attends Hagerstown Community College in 
Hagerstown, MD. She is attempting to make a better future for herself 
and for her son. She is attempting--she is going to be a full-time 
student. Katherine also works part time at a minimum wage job, all 
while juggling her responsibilities as a single mother. Student loans 
are necessary. She needs to take out student loans. That is the only 
way she is able to afford her college. She has student loans in order 
to be able to stay afloat and realize her dream of making a better 
future for herself and her son. If student loan interest rates were to 
double, Katherine would be in a financial turmoil and her future 
aspirations in jeopardy. Let me quote from Katherine. This is what she 
says. I think it is so telling.

       I want to be able to close my eyes and see a bright future 
     for my family and my son. However, if these interest rates 
     increase, all I see from this point forward is a hole I don't 
     think I'll ever be able to climb out of.

  I know some of my colleagues say we are talking about another 3-
percent interest charge, people will be able to afford it. But let me 
tell you about the real world, the world of Katherine Eames. That is 
the real world. That is people making career decisions now as to 
whether they are going to follow their dream; whether she will become a 
nurse, be able to help her community, help her family, help herself. If 
we do not make college affordable or if we add additional costs to it, 
we are going to add more people to this process. As a society, 
America's competitiveness will suffer as a result. We need to do 
better. We need to pass this legislation to help the Katherine Eameses 
who are out there.
  Let me talk about another Marylander, Ariana Fisher. She wanted to be 
a doctor since she was 5 years of age. Through hard work and 
determination, she has been accepted to Georgetown University's medical 
school. Attending will require her to take out a significant amount in 
student loans. That is the fact for most American families, their 
children will have to take out loans if they are going to be able to 
reach their dreams. She knows how much these are going to cost, but she 
says compounding this with increased interest rates hinders her ability 
to pursue her dream. She has the will and the passion to become an 
excellent physician and her aspirations should not rest on what we do 
here in making it more economically difficult for her to be able to 
afford that education. That will not only benefit her but will benefit 
our community.
  We are talking about our children. We are talking about whether our 
children are going to be able to pursue the American dream, whether 
they are going to have the education they need to help themselves and 
help our country. We are talking about America's future. This is about 
whether this Nation is going to be able to continue to lead the world 
in economic growth. We need to take up the Stop The Student Loan Rate 
Hike Act.
  Let me explain. It is subject to a filibuster. Yes, it is a 
filibuster. We tried to say let's at least get on the bill, which 
required 60 votes in order to be able to break this filibuster. We came 
up short. I hope the majority leader will schedule another vote shortly 
and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will remember what 
this means for the future of this country.
  The stories I related with regard to Katherine Eames or Ariana Fisher 
are not unique. I am certain you would find similar examples in New 
Mexico or any other State in this country. You are going to find 
similar examples of people who desperately need us to act so college 
costs do not increase. Then let's work together to bring down the costs 
of college education. College and postsecondary education are a vital 
gateway to helping American students around the country to achieve the 
American dream.
  We need to stand for our Nation's future. We cannot allow higher 
education to become unaffordable for millions of Americans who have the 
desire and ability to learn and succeed. Let's end the filibuster. 
Let's work together as Democrats and Republicans. Let's keep America's 
future in mind, let's keep the American dream in mind, let's allow 
Americans to reach that dream by making college education affordable. 
Let's pass the legislation that is currently pending that would stop 
the increase in the interest rates on college loans.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

[[Page S3013]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we arrive here at a moment when we 
once again have a chance to view the differences in thought and 
perspective which are exhibited at this moment in this institution. 
Today, we are talking about college education. We are talking about 
programs for young people to get an education and go to college.
  For generations, affordable college education has been an essential 
tool for providing opportunity and building a strong society.
  I know from personal experience that government plays a critical role 
in making higher education possible. I served in World War II, and when 
I joined the Army there was no prospect for me to go to college. I was 
18 when I enlisted. When I finished my Army service--having been in 
Europe during the war--things looked bleak, but there was an 
opportunity that loomed in front of me, and that was an ability to 
attend college.
  My family was faced with poverty and there wasn't much money in the 
family, but there was something called the GI bill. The GI bill gave me 
a chance to achieve a dream.
  I joined with a couple friends to form a company. The company was 
called ADP. The company that produces the labor statistics every month 
that this country and the whole world sees. When I was able to start 
this company with two other fellows, none of us had any money. The two 
of them were brothers, and we didn't have any resources at all. We had 
to start from nothing. In the days that we had a chance to get going, 
the future was brightened a little bit by the fact that an education 
was possible to have. That company we started with nothing today 
employs more than 50,000 people around the world.
  The country invested in my generation by helping us pay for college, 
and that investment helped create decades of prosperity. As a matter of 
fact, that generation--post-World War II--was called the greatest 
generation ever seen in American history. Out of 16 million people who 
served in the Army, 8 million people got a college education through 
the GI bill, and thus this generation that came out started us on a 
track for prosperity this country had never seen. The investment the GI 
bill made in people says that when we have a chance to educate people 
and get them to go to college or to attend a university, that is the 
way we create the next great generation.
  Attending college has never before been this expensive. The cost of 
tuition at public universities is 37 percent more expensive now than 
just 10 years ago. Think about that. If the average cost for a college 
10 years ago was $40,000, it now costs well over $50,000. As a result, 
more and more students are taking on massive loans that will plague 
them for years. I use the word ``plague'' because it is very difficult 
to get started in life, in business or start a family and be facing 
heavy debt at the same time.
  Sixty-six percent of New Jersey students graduate with loan 
indebtedness. The average loan burden for New Jersey graduates is more 
than $23,000. No wonder we hear that technology companies are hungry to 
hire but can't always find people with the education and skills they 
need. The pricetag alone puts college out of reach for too many people
  And the clock is ticking on even higher college costs. Unless 
Congress acts, interest rates on many student loans are going to double 
on July 1--less than 2 months from today. For many students, doubling 
rates will cost them $1,000 more for each year of college.
  But instead of standing with students, our friends on the Republican 
side are playing politics. They made it clear that keeping student loan 
rates low is not a priority. They don't see it as something being 
worthwhile. Two Republican Senators have introduced budget proposals 
that would allow student loan interest rates to double.
  Yesterday, we saw 44 Senate Republicans vote to prevent the Senate 
from even considering our bill to keep student loan rates low. How 
heartless. How thoughtless it is to punish our country this way. 
College is already too expensive. Why would we put up obstacles to 
getting an education?
  Republicans should listen to people who are suffering from the high 
cost of college. There have been 1,400 people who have written to me 
through mail or Facebook to say: Don't let them do it. Don't let them 
double my rates.
  A single mother from New Jersey who is helping her daughter pay for 
college wrote to say that any increase would create enormous hardship 
and an inability to continue to provide for the family. Another New 
Jerseyan says America will not be able to compete with the rest of the 
world if college is accessible only to those who have the ability to 
pay for it up front, and I agree. We will not be able to compete if we 
don't have the educated people necessary to fill the jobs that are 
available.
  Our Republican friends say they want to prevent the doubling of 
interest rates. So why don't they step up to the plate? I don't 
understand that. They say one thing on one hand: Oh, yes; we don't want 
to increase the rates. On the other hand, they say we are not going to 
help keep them at the lower rate they are now. They say in order to pay 
for keeping rates low for students, we have to cut vital funding for 
programs that keep people healthy. Their bill would slash funding for 
prevention and public health funds, programs dedicated to stop 
devastating diseases before they occur. Chronic diseases, such as 
cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, take more than 1 million lives 
every year and account for 75 percent of our Nation's health spending. 
That is why the Prevention and Public Health Fund has invested $226 
million to reduce chronic illnesses.

  The President's budget also calls for using this program to protect 
women's health by providing breast and cervical cancer screenings to 
low-income women, but it won't happen if Republicans get their way.
  The Republican bill would also cripple programs that keep kids from 
smoking and help smokers to quit. We have all seen the ads--real people 
telling real stories about how tobacco has affected their lives. This 
chart tells the story: ``Don't be shy about telling people not to smoke 
around your kids.'' We see a picture here of a mother and a child. 
Republicans don't care about educating people on the dangers of 
smoking? Who are they protecting here? Certainly not our children and 
certainly not our students.
  It is unconscionable. Republicans profess they want to keep loan 
rates low but only if we sacrifice programs that protect children from 
smoking addiction and help women avoid breast cancer and other deadly 
diseases.
  The Democrats have a better solution. The bill Majority Leader Reid 
has introduced pays for keeping student loan rates low by eliminating a 
tax convenience that millionaires and billionaires use to avoid payroll 
taxes. Rather than choose to close this loophole, the Republicans 
choose to take this opportunity to talk our bill to death. They would 
rather see interest rates double for students than force the wealthy to 
pay their fair share of the country's obligation.
  Student loans open the door to opportunities. Interest rates have to 
be kept low to protect graduates from a mountain of debt.
  I call on my professional experience again, if I might. I finished 
college. My father passed away while he was in the Army. He was only 43 
years old. He left my mother a 37-year-old widow to care for herself 
and my sister. As luck had it, I got an education at Columbia 
University, at the business school there. I started a company I 
mentioned before called ADP. It provides services across the world for 
those companies that need help in doing their payroll, accounting, and 
other recordkeeping that companies must do. It only happened because we 
were able to get our education through the GI bill. There was zero cost 
to those of us who served in World War II and even some money to pay 
for books and for other necessities.
  So I call on my Republican colleagues to stop the obstructionism, 
stop the politicking, and stop throwing obstacles in the way of young 
people who want to get an education and make a contribution to this 
society as well as to themselves and elevate America's ability to deal 
with the competition we see in the world. It is time to do that.

[[Page S3014]]

  I am not suggesting that our Republican colleagues don't want 
progress. They do. But when we try to move a bill that says: Keep 
interest rates low on college loans, keep the rate low so that when 
people get out of college they are not so burdened by debt that they 
can't get started in life, I say keep them low so that America competes 
as it should--right at the top of the ladder with educated people, 
people who want to succeed but don't have the tools necessarily until 
they finish their college education. Why put obstacles in the way? It 
is incomprehensible because there are a lot of good people on the other 
side. But why do they persist in obstructing the opportunity to even 
discuss it? They want to filibuster it to death. Filibuster, for those 
who don't know the term, means talk, talk, talk, talk, talk--do 
anything but make progress.
  So I hope we will say to those who have been successful: Do your fair 
share. Let your contribution to the well-being of our country educate 
those who can learn and not make it so expensive, so out of reach that 
few will be able to take advantage of it.
  I ask to please move this bill along. Let's let the American people 
at least know what we think about this legislation to keep interest 
rates low.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that 
immediately following my remarks, Senator Udall of New Mexico be 
recognized to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have been listening to these speeches for 
the last couple of days--3 days, actually. If one listens to the other 
side of the aisle, one would think Republicans are against college 
education. I don't think there is a person in America who believes 
that. One would also believe we want to raise the interest rates from 
3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. There shouldn't be anybody in America who 
believes that either. We really think that for 1 year the rates on 
subsidized Stafford loans ought to stay at the 3.4 percent, and maybe 
beyond that.
  The real issue isn't the interest rate, and we can tell that from the 
speeches that have been given. The real issue is the cost of college. 
Are we doing anything about the cost of college? No. Does Congress have 
anything to do besides debate this particular issue? Evidently not. We 
are being called a do-nothing Congress, but evidently we don't have 
anything else to do. It could be possible to go to something else, but 
instead we have had one vote on this, and we still weren't given an 
option for this side of the aisle to have a vote on our idea. So now we 
are going to get to vote on that same issue from Tuesday once again--
maybe sometime this week or maybe not until next week. Instead, we are 
going to stay right on this issue so that if we stay at exactly this 
point in this issue, it will fail again and then that side can say: Oh, 
those Republicans just want to raise interest rates. Not true.
  I hope the American people have noticed that any bill that goes 
directly from the President to Harry Reid to the floor doesn't pass. A 
bill that goes to committee, regardless of where the source is, has a 
chance of a bipartisan solution.
  I am the ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, and we have a user fee bill that passed nearly unanimously 
out of committee. We have the support of the stakeholders. We have the 
support of the companies. We have the support of Senate Republicans and 
Democrats. We have even talked to the House people about it. It is a 
bill that ought to make it through here pretty quickly, and I suspect 
it will. When it does, I bet we don't hear any comment about it because 
that would make us look like a do-something Congress, which is what we 
ought to be.

  My colleagues can't tell me this is the only issue that needs 
attention. Yet we are going to spend a whole week on this issue when 
both sides agree it ought to be at 3.4 percent. What we are disagreeing 
on is how we will pay for it. I have to tell my colleagues that the 
real answer isn't either side's answer, but it could be worked out if 
it went to committee.
  I was told this was going to be a bipartisan, jointly discussed issue 
just before we left for the recess. Then this bill was put forward, and 
no further conversation was allowed on it. Our committee was left out 
of it. And we bring it to the floor, and they said we will have a fair 
and open debate. Yes, look at this--there are two of us on the floor, 
and he is waiting to speak and he is not listening to what I am saying, 
and there isn't anybody else listening to what I am saying. Well, they 
might be back watching the television and picking it up there, and I 
certainly hope they are.
  Where we get the real discussion is in the committees. Small groups 
of people who are intensely interested in the issues come to those 
committees and we work it out. Senator Harkin and I will get amendments 
a couple of days before the bill is to be marked up in committee to 
find out what everybody's ideas are for how it ought to be changed, and 
we sit down and we look through those and we say: Well, look at this 
pile here. They are all pretty much the same amendment, but there are 
people from both sides of the aisle who are interested in it, so why 
don't we just get those four people or those two people or those five 
people together and see if they can't work something out. It is really 
surprising because they usually can come up with a few changed words 
that solve the problem in which they are interested. That is the way we 
get things done. That is not the way we are operating on the floor.
  I am on the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is supposed to 
be handling taxes. Let's see. How many markups have we had this year? I 
don't think we have had a single markup. We have not looked at a 
specific bill and tried to come up with a solution in committee. 
Nothing has been assigned to that committee to finish.
  Do we think we have any tax problems in this country? I think so. We 
keep talking about tax reform, but we are not doing anything on tax 
reform. Instead, we are talking about the interest rate on college 
student loans. It is extremely important to the 40 percent of the 
students who have a subsidized loan who are going to be protected by 
this. It is extremely important to them. We keep talking about college 
and the cost of college, but are we doing anything about the cost of 
college? No, we are not. That should be disappointing to America. We 
ought to be covering the big issues.
  Our committee did a bunch of hearings, and I asked for those hearings 
to be on the cost of all college education. Instead, what we did was 
beat up on private for-profit colleges. We did hearing after hearing 
after hearing, and some of those were a little suspect because I know 
at least one of the witnesses called in to testify fell short in the 
market and was able to run down the colleges and thus make a lot of 
money off of his testimony. That is not how it is supposed to work. We 
could have looked at all college costs and found some ways to drive 
down the price of college, but we didn't do that. So now we are 
standing here and saying: Those darned Republicans aren't interested in 
the cost of college. How wrong can you be?
  We started this debate on Monday, we voted on it on Tuesday, and then 
we decided we would reconsider the vote. That means the pollsters said 
that this is a pretty good issue for that side of the aisle, and if 
they can drag it out longer, they can do better. That is not what 
Congress is about. Congress is about solving problems.
  There are two sides to this, and in the debate earlier, I said that 
if we would just allow a side-by-side so that you get a vote and we get 
a vote, we could get something done and move on. The Senator from Iowa, 
Mr. Harkin, said: I would let us do a side-by-side.

  The next thing I know, the media is saying: You were offered a side-
by-side but you did not take it. Not true. We were offered an 
opportunity maybe to put a substitute amendment in at a future time--
maybe. That is not the same. That is not the same as getting the same 
kind of a vote on the same kind of an issue. And that is always what 
has been done. We have always allowed side-by-sides. But not on this 
one. We would rather have the debate going on and try and convince 
America that both sides of the aisle are doing the wrong thing.
  Not only are we giving the impression that we are a do-nothing 
Congress,

[[Page S3015]]

we are giving them the impression there is nothing for us to do. Let's 
see. We did not do a budget and we have not done any appropriations 
bills yet, and there are 12 appropriations bills that have to pass this 
body, and it takes at least a week for each appropriations bill. We 
have the authorization bill for defense which we debate each and every 
year, and about 100 other issues that need to come up here. But 
instead, we are not voting this week, except the earlier vote on this 
particular bill and another reconsideration vote. If you keep doing the 
same thing, you ought to expect the same kind of results.
  One of the reasons we are voting against the bill that is on the 
floor is it has not been to committee so it has a lot of flaws in it. 
This is a poorly drafted bill. Here is kind of how it works: We have 
said that dentists and doctors and other professionals who are in small 
corporations--we are picking on small business here--are cheating on 
their taxes. They are not paying a payroll tax on their dividends.
  There is a law against that, and the IRS can enforce that law, and 
does enforce that law. The examples that have been given are times that 
they actually caught people doing that and enforced it and won. But to 
do an audit on this, it would probably take a maximum of 30 minutes of 
computer time to find every small business corporation that might be 
cheating on their payroll taxes. But instead of doing that, we are 
going to use it as a pay-for, and we are saying it is only doctors and 
dentists and lawyers and accountants and other professionals who are 
doing this.
  Well, there are a whole bunch of people who have small business 
corporations. Small business corporations are an important way to 
finance small businesses, and it is a little less complicated than the 
big corporations. But we usually do not pick on them specifically, and 
we usually do not separate them into separate groups. This one is just 
the professionals. It does not cover the rest of them.
  I asked the question earlier. I said: Does that mean you are saving 
the others for a pay-for for something else? If there is a problem, we 
ought to solve the problem. But the problem can easily be solved by the 
IRS by doing the proper job of auditing, if that is the case. But these 
small business corporations are declaring that a lot of their profit is 
a dividend.
  Here is an interesting part: We are not talking about the income tax 
they pay on that. They are having to pay the income tax. Unlike a big 
corporation, they are paying the income tax on their personal tax form 
the minute it is earned, not when it gets actually distributed.
  Most of the small businesspeople have to pay the tax on it but leave 
it in the business so they can grow their business. I have been there. 
I have had a small business corporation. I know, while you would like 
to take the money out, if you want your business to succeed, you have 
to keep reinvesting and reinventing. That means you do not get to take 
the money out.
  If we were being fair, we would say anybody who makes over $250,000 
in dividends a year would include that as payroll tax. In other words, 
this is another Warren Buffett thing. How many millions do you think he 
makes in a year that come into him as dividends? If those did not count 
as dividends, he would have to pay a Medicare percentage tax on every 
dime of that. That is what we are talking about here with the 
professionals whom we are going to discriminate against in a bit. We 
are saying that anything that counts as a dividend for them, they are 
going to have to pay the Medicare tax on. Why just pick on the 
professionals? Why not pick on all small businesses?
  Of course, small business is the job creator for the country, so we 
should not be picking on any of them. We should be making sure they are 
paying the taxes they owe, but that is not what we are doing. And we 
are saying Warren Buffett is a special case out there, even though we 
like to talk about a Warren Buffett tax every once in a while, but we 
are not going to in this case.
  What we are talking about is the tax that would be for Social 
Security and Medicare. If they are not paying that, they ought to be 
paying it. But we are saying that is a good pay-for.
  How many times do you think we can take the money that is supposed to 
go to Social Security and Medicare and spend it on something else and 
hope Social Security and Medicare continue to exist? That is what we 
are doing here. We are saying we are going to take the money from the 
doctors and the dentists and other professionals and we are going to 
make them pay a Social Security and Medicare tax, but we are not going 
to put that into Medicare, we are not going to put that into Social 
Security. Instead, we are going to give it to college students so they 
have a reduction in their loan.
  It is kind of interesting. The Department of Education borrows their 
money at 2.8 percent, maximum, and they are loaning it out to college 
students at 3.4 percent for subsidized student loans and 6.8 percent 
for unsubsidized student loans. The law says that on July 1 it is 
supposed to go to 6.8 percent for both subsidized and unsubsidized 
student loans. Where do you think that profit goes? Well, we already 
spend that on other projects. That is why it needs to go to 6.8 
percent, so we can pay for what we promised we would pay for. But if we 
freeze the interest rate on subsidized loans at 3.4 percent for one-
year, we still have to pay for the other things. So what we are going 
to do is, we are going to take money that ought to go to Medicare, and 
we are going to give it to college students. So it is a dilemma.
  We want to make sure the rate stays at 3.4 percent. But this body, 
debating back and forth, without getting any votes, is not going to 
resolve it. Even if we got to do an amendment or two--that is a big 
deal around here: to get to do an amendment or two on the floor--we 
still would not be able to resolve it because we would not have gotten 
the people from here and the people from there together in a small 
group to work out a solution. That is what the leader ought to be 
doing. That is why you send things to committee. But we are not doing 
that.

  The other side has assured me that even though we are not putting 
this money into the Medicare trust fund, that the Medicare trust fund 
will still have all of its money. Let me tell you how that works. As an 
accountant in the Senate--and there are only two of us now. For 15 
years, I was the only one. But there are two of us now. Here is how it 
works: When the money comes in, a bond is put in the Medicare drawer 
that says the Federal Government owes Medicare that amount of money. 
But we go ahead and spend the money.
  They say: Well, this trust fund is still intact. No. It only has debt 
in it. It does not have money in it. I discovered that trying to get 
some money out of a trust fund once. They said: Well, you cannot get it 
out unless you put money in. What kind of bank account is that? What 
kind of a trust fund is that? That is what Social Security and Medicare 
are. They are a bunch of bonds in a drawer that the Federal Government 
says we are good for. The way we are spending, we may not be able to be 
good for that. People ought to be concerned about that.
  So that is where we are. We are talking about taking the Medicare 
money and the Social Security money, putting bonds in a drawer, using 
the money, and saying all is well in the world and everything is paid 
for.
  Our side has said, there is a health care slush fund and there are 
not any criteria set up on it. There are some broad categories it can 
be spent on, but there are no real criteria on it, and it has more than 
enough money to pay for this. The only person who gets to decide how 
that money is given out is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
and she has a lot of flexibility on that. There is a lot of money 
coming in--maybe at least $2 billion every year allocated to that, and 
there is already money in that fund, as it started with more. I think 
the estimate was actually $80 billion over the life of the health care 
bill. The President himself has helped himself to that when we did the 
payroll tax holiday extension. That is where the money came from for 
that.
  So our side has said: Why don't we use that again? That is supposedly 
real money. But one thing that both sides are doing--they are saying: 
OK, we are going to freeze the interest rate for 1 year, but we are 
counting revenue that is supposed to come in for 10 years.
  How many people in America can say: I am going to have this salary, 
and I might have it for 10 years, but I need

[[Page S3016]]

to spend it all this year. If I spend it all this year, how do I live 
the other 9 years of the time? That is what we are faced with every 
time we do a 10-year receipt of money in exchange for a 1-year spending 
project. And we are doing that more and more and more.
  But, again, under our accounting system, that does not go down as the 
same kind of liability and debt situation that increases the debt 
ceiling or increases the debt for the country. So it is a very clever 
tactic to use, but it is not honest with the American people.
  Yes, I am upset we are spending all this time on this reconsideration 
of a vote that we had. When you do not make any changes, you can expect 
the vote to come out exactly the same. But it allows us days to 
harangue each other, and that is the wrong way to do it.
  I have asked the leader to pull this bill down, send it to committee, 
give them a limited amount of time to work on it, and see if they can 
come up with a solution that both sides would like and one that does 
not have a lot of loopholes in it.
  Loopholes? Well, when we are talking about these small business 
corporations for doctors and dentists, et cetera, we said: If they make 
more than $250,000 a year and if the small business corporation has 
three stockholders or less. I do not think they are cheating to the 
degree that they say this money would come in. But if they are, I can 
see the wheels turning out there and people saying: Let's see, I have 
three people in my corporation. Oh, my son is not in the corporation 
yet, so we will make that a fourth one. When we get the fourth person 
in the corporation, we are exempted from this.
  How much money do you think is going to come in through that 
proposal? That is what can be worked out if it goes to committee. So, I 
again ask the leader to send it to a committee, give them a limited 
amount of time to work on it, and see if they can come up with a 
solution that both sides will like because both sides said the interest 
rate ought to be 3.4 percent for the next year.
  Then we ought to take a look at the cost of all college education. As 
all the people have said, college is important. Education after high 
school is important. We had one hearing on that in the HELP Committee 
too. When we were scheduled to have that hearing--I make a weekly trip 
out to Wyoming and travel around the State so I get to talk to a lot of 
people--I happened to be talking to some sixth graders, and I said: We 
are going to have this hearing, and the title of it is: Is education 
after high school important? Do you know what. Those kids all said yes. 
We did not have to bring in some people from Harvard and Stanford to 
convince us of that. We could have been talking about the cost of 
college, which would get more people going to college, and not just 
college but some of the tech schools too because we are going to need a 
lot of different professions in future years.
  Let's get this thing to committee and get it resolved and get on with 
some of the issues we need to be working on--some of the ones that are 
big money that affect all of America, not just 40 percent of the 
students at about a cost of $7 a month.
  So with that plea, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank you for the recognition, Mr. 
President.
  Let me say, I have been sitting here listening to my colleague, the 
Senator from Wyoming, and I think he makes some good points. I think we 
do need a more open process. I think we need to try as much as possible 
to work with each other in the committee process. I do not think there 
is any doubt about that. I think we need to allow germane amendments 
and have a good, robust debate on the bills that are on the floor.
  But what I want to talk about today is the fact that we are in a 
filibuster. Fifty-two of us wanted to move forward on this bill and 45 
of us did not. That is why we are locked in this situation.
  I rise with regret today, and there is much to regret about 
yesterday's vote on the student loan bill. First, I regret the false 
choice between helping students or funding preventive health care. Most 
Americans support student loans. Most Americans see the value of 
preventive health care. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would ask that we sacrifice one for the other.
  An affordable education should not be held hostage to cuts in 
preventive health care. That is not a choice; it is an ultimatum.
  Have we come to this? We teach our children to set goals, to set 
priorities. It should surprise no one that they seriously question our 
goals, our priorities. It is like a bus heading toward a cliff. We can 
turn it around, and we ought to be able to do so without throwing 
students underneath it.
  The other side says they care about our Nation's students too. 
Perhaps, but there is caring, and then there is devotion. Once again, 
their devotion is for the wealthiest among us and not for the 7 million 
students who are worried about how they will pay for their education.
  Back to choices. As any bright college student can tell us, it always 
comes down to choices. How do we protect the Stafford Student Loan 
Program? By further cuts to preventive health care? By weakening 
research to prevent disease? By cutting our response to public health 
emergencies? No, of course not. We do it by closing a tax loophole, by 
requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share of payroll taxes.
  I submit that this is not, and should not be, a tough choice, but 
apparently it is. In fact, it is so tough that the other side doesn't 
want to talk about it any further. The result? Yet another filibuster.
  That brings me to my other regret. Once again, this Senate is broken, 
in limbo, stuck. Once again, the American people look on in dismay.
  The Senate was once called the greatest deliberative body in the 
world. Now it reminds me of that song, ``The Sound of Silence,'' ``and 
no one dared disturb the sound of silence.''
  That is what we hear more and more--silence. No debate, no 
discussion. Yesterday's vote was the 21st filibuster by Republicans of 
a Democratic bill this Congress--the 21st--and the year is young.
  This ugly parade of filibusters--and for what? Let's see. To block 
the President's job bill, to stop the repeal of tax breaks for big oil 
companies, to not help local governments pay for teachers and first 
responders, to prevent a minimum tax on households earning more than $1 
million a year, and now it is student loans--another filibuster, more 
sounds of silence.
  I have previously joined my colleagues and friends, Senator Merkley 
of Oregon and Senator Harkin of Iowa, to push for fundamental reforms 
in how the Senate operates. The reason then and even more abundantly 
clear now is that the Senate was broken.
  This is tragic. At a time when our country needs us to act, we do 
almost nothing. It is no wonder that Congress's approval ratings are at 
an all-time low. Instead of working to solve the major problems our 
country faces, we retreat to the shadows.
  In order to have real change in the process, the Senate has to change 
the way we go about business. I have advocated, and will continue to do 
so, that the Senate, at the beginning of each Congress, should adopt 
its own rules by a simple majority vote. The Constitution clearly gives 
us this authority, and it is time to exercise it. Yet at the beginning 
of each Congress, the Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, 
doesn't vote to adopt its rules. The Senate simply accepts the rules of 
the previous Congress--rules that lead to the unfettered abuse of 
filibusters, rules that have made the Senate a graveyard of good ideas.
  When we fail to reform our rules, their abuse becomes an entrenched 
part of the Senate's culture. That is where we are today--after years 
of filibuster abuse, we have turned the Senate into a supermajoritarian 
body. To do anything in today's Senate requires 60 votes.
  Yesterday's vote on the student loan bill was a prime example. We 
can't even get onto the bill. Fifty-two Senators voted to move forward, 
but 45 Senators chose to filibuster. Once again, minority obstruction 
prevents majority rule. That is not democratic, and it is not how our 
Founders intended the Senate to operate.
  This has to change. A new Congress will begin next January. Right 
now, we

[[Page S3017]]

don't know which party will control the House, the Senate, or the White 
House, but it should not matter. The Senate must reform itself 
regardless of which party has control, not for the good of the 
Democrats or the Republicans but for the good of the country.
  The Senate will have many new Members next January, and I think most 
of them will want to become part of a functioning legislative body, one 
where they can bring their best ideas and have them debated, a body 
where all views are heard and considered but majority rule is once 
again the norm. That institution cannot exist under the existing rules, 
and we continue to prove that on a daily basis.
  The reforms Senators Harkin, Merkley, and I proposed at the beginning 
of this Congress had strong support, but it did not pass. So here we 
are, 21 filibusters later, and the line of Americans who wait for a 
Congress that works, that actually gets things done, and that comes 
together to find solutions--that line just got longer by about 7 
million students.
  Several of my constituents have watched and have seen this filibuster 
proceed, and they have written me on my Facebook page. I thought I 
would share a couple of those comments because they really go to the 
heart of what is happening on student loans.
  Tracy Edwards writes me, saying that student loans are vital. She 
says:

       My daughter graduates this Saturday from UNM. Without 
     student loans, this day would not have come.

  Her daughter would not have graduated.

       In 6 months, we will start repayment of those loans. I am 
     not asking anyone else to pay my daughter's loan, but why 
     should we be punished with an increase for trying to ensure 
     our children get a solid education? If a bankruptcy is filed, 
     you could lose your home, your car, and your credit, but 
     student loans are mandated for repayment, no matter what. Is 
     it too much to ask for a fair interest rate? I think the 1 
     percent will not be happy until it is a world of the haves 
     and have nots.

  Thank you, Tracy.
  Donna Kubiak writes this:

       I agree . . . my daughter is a single mom of 3 kids and 
     working on her degree to teach elementary school . . . 
     without financial aid, she will have to work for a minimum 
     wage job and get welfare indefinitely.

  Thank you, Donna, for that comment.
  Mr. President, as we know, this issue is absolutely crucial to 7 
million American students who don't want to see those interest rates 
skyrocket a couple months from now. I believe the estimate is about 
$1,000 per student. They can't afford that, and we need to get this 
bill on the Senate floor. We need to cut out the filibusters and settle 
down and do the amendment process, the debate, and produce a bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about where we are 
right now procedurally in the Senate on the issue of student loan debt 
and the interest rates that we charge those who take out Stafford 
loans, but also the larger question of student loan debt and how we 
make the highway, the pathway, to higher education for America's 
students clearer, fairer, and more predictable.
  Yates once said that education is not the filling of an empty bucket 
but the lighting of a fire. Educating our young people is one of the 
most important things we do as a society. In lighting the fire of 
curiosity, imagination, enthusiasm, entrepreneurship, and creativity, 
particularly higher education is one of the things that distinguishes 
the United States from many other countries around the world. We have 
long had an enormous advantage in having one of the world's greatest 
educational systems.
  As the occupant of the chair knows, in Vermont and in Delaware today 
there are so many working families who deeply question whether the 
pathway toward higher education for their children will be as 
predictable, fair, and straight as it has been for past generations. 
When I meet with business owners, innovators, job creators, they 
deliver the same message: They have jobs. They are ready to hire people 
who have the education and the skills they need to compete and 
participate in the modern economy.
  Today, with more than 12.5 million Americans out of work, including 
more than 30,000 Delawareans who are out of work, the question is, How 
do we make higher education, skills training, vocational schools, and 
community college more affordable and accessible? One thing we can do, 
and have to do, is address the staggering debt that lingers with 
graduates sometimes decades after completing school.
  We are faced with two problems. One is a short-term problem and one 
is longer term. The short-term problem is that without immediate 
congressional action, student loan interest rates for millions of 
Americans will double on July 1.
  If we allow rates on federally subsidized Stafford loans to increase 
from 3.4 to 6.8 percent, we will saddle student borrowers with an 
additional $6.3 billion in interest payments. In Delaware, this could 
impact more than 18,000 student borrowers, burdening families who are 
still struggling to recover from the recession with unexpected 
additional bills. Lots of people have contacted my office--called or 
written or sent me postings on Facebook, and they have tweeted to 
contact my office and many others here about their concerns.
  Alexandra, a recent graduate from Wilmington, DE, reached out to me 
and wrote:

       I can confidently say that going to a four-year college has 
     prepared me more than I thought it ever could for success in 
     my job search. Because of this education, however, I am 
     facing about $20,000 of debt with a low-paying job.

  Alexandra is deeply concerned about the significant debt she faces, 
and she urged me to work hard to freeze the interest rate on her 
student loan rather than letting it double.
  I agree with Alexandra and fully support efforts on this floor to fix 
this short-term problem by freezing interest rates on Stafford loans.
  I am disappointed that yesterday's vote--the failure to invoke 
cloture--to get past a filibuster by the other party has prevented the 
Senate from moving forward and discussing a possible realistic 
solution.
  It is important for the Congress to confront this rise in interest 
rates, and I hope we can come to a bipartisan consensus. But let's be 
clear. Even doing that will not solve the larger long-term problem. 
Addressing this rise in interest rates would not change how much 
students borrow, numbers that are only steadily growing.
  Just this week our Nation's cumulative student loan debt total 
crossed the $1 trillion threshold. That is an enormous burden on young 
people just getting started in life and in their careers. If we are to 
really address this challenge, we have to help students make smart 
decisions about financing their education.
  We can empower students to make more informed choices by fully 
understanding the relationship between their debt, their choice of 
major or studies, and their future career path by providing more and 
earlier and better information about this.
  Financial literacy, and a clear understanding of how or whether 
borrowing will help raise their earning potential later is a key part 
of the real solution to our country's ongoing and exploding student 
loan debt.
  We can also seek creative solutions that look beyond the obvious and 
really work to make higher education more affordable for more students. 
That is why I am so glad to work with my friend, Congressman Chaka 
Fattah of Philadelphia, PA, on new legislation to encourage private 
investment in college scholarships. Congressman Fattah showed 
tremendous leadership in crafting this bill. We introduce a new tax 
credit that will help more kids afford a college education, entitled 
Communities Committed to College Tax Credit Act of 2012.
  The bill provides tax incentives to encourage private donors to 
support and sustain educational trusts that make higher education 
possible for all the young people of a chosen community. These private 
donors, encouraged by a 50-percent tax credit, will help fund need-
based college scholarships,

[[Page S3018]]

fueling a new generation of achievement by making higher education more 
affordable and reducing the need for student loans. But equally 
important, in places such as Syracuse where these programs are already 
in place, it changes expectations. When young people, in the very 
beginning of schooling--from the first, second, and third grade--know 
there is some possibility, some savings account, some community program 
that will fund their higher education, the likelihood they will finish 
high school and go on to college increases by four to seven times.
  I support Congressman Fattah's innovative effort to support community 
trusts that support higher education. That is one idea for looking 
beyond the box and working to make higher education more accessible.
  Here is another. The American Dream Accounts Act is a bipartisan, 
bicameral bill to encourage real partnerships between schools, 
colleges, nonprofits, and businesses to develop secure, Web-based, 
individual, portable student accounts that contain information about 
each student's academic preparedness and skills. It also directly 
tackles the issue of student loan debt by working with students on 
financial literacy from a very young age. Instead of having each of 
these different resources available, as they are now, separately 
siloed, it connects them across existing education programs at the 
State and Federal level.
  I am grateful to Senator Bingaman of New Mexico and Senator Rubio of 
Florida for joining me as original cosponsors here in the Senate. This 
bill is a potentially powerful step toward helping more students of all 
income levels and backgrounds access, afford, and complete a college 
education. It is rooted in my own experience with the I Have a Dream 
Foundation, which has helped more than 15,000 young people all over the 
country to achieve the dream of higher education.
  If we want American companies, American workers, and American 
families to compete and win in the global economy, we have to help our 
students afford higher education. It really is that simple. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to find solutions that promote 
affordable, accessible higher education because early action and early 
engagement can help change the future and the outcomes for our kids and 
make it possible for them to achieve the American dream.
  It is my hope that we can overcome this needless filibuster, 
yesterday's setback, and that all of us can come together and achieve 
what we say we want to do together--a responsible path forward that 
avoids needless additional burdens on working families trying to 
finance their children's education--and that we can look seriously at 
these two proposals I have touched on briefly today that will help our 
students of the future understand and afford higher education to make 
their American dream possible.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for 
speaking to some critical issues. It is a shame we are not in a 
position where we can offer the Senator's amendments, but, as he knows 
and as he spoke to in his speech, the decision yesterday by the 
Republicans to go into a filibuster--which is what we are having on the 
floor and which is why there are so few people and nothing really 
happening aside from some really outstanding speeches--is a decision 
they have made time and again.
  This was rarely used in the history of the Senate--the filibuster. 
Oh, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington''--some people will remember that 
movie, and in the 1960s during the civil rights debate, they may 
remember that too. Sometimes it was used during the Vietnam war, maybe. 
But it has rarely been used. Now it has become so routine, so 
commonplace, that day after weary day people who subscribe to C SPAN on 
their cable channels are calling in to the cable providers and asking 
for their money back because nothing is happening on the floor of the 
Senate. And whose fault is that? It is our fault. It is our fault. When 
an issue such as this--the one that brought on this filibuster--is 
explained to the American people, they shake their heads and ask: What 
are you doing in Washington?
  Well, here is what this is all about. On July 1, the interest rate on 
student loans through the Federal Government doubles. It goes from 3.4 
percent to 6.8 percent unless we do something. So we have a bill we 
brought to the floor yesterday. We said: Let's bring this bill in, 
debate it, vote on it, and let's change the law so that we can protect 
these students and families. Let's freeze that increase and keep it at 
the original 3.4 percent. Now, what is that worth? For someone 
borrowing $20,000 over the course of their college education, it is 
worth $4,000. If that is your son or daughter and you happened to 
cosign with them, $4,000 is nothing to sneeze at.
  The Pew Foundation did a survey of working families across America, I 
say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Vermont, and they asked 
a very basic question of the working-family population. The question 
was how many of them could come up with $2,000 in 30 days--2,000 bucks. 
Maybe there was an emergency in their home--a water pipe just broke or 
the furnace broke down. My daughter just went to the hospital. But how 
many could come up with $2,000 was the question, and only half 
responded that they could. Half of the working families in America have 
access to $2,000. So what does $4,000 or more in interest being paid 
mean? For a Senator, not much. For an average working person, a lot.
  Now, what happened yesterday? We called this bill and said: Let's 
move it, let's start debating it, and let's get it done before July 1. 
We all agree we should. President Obama and even Governor Romney said 
we should get this done. But not a single Republican Senator would vote 
with us--not one. Not one Senator would join us to bring the bill to 
the floor. That is why we sit here literally wasting our time and the 
time of taxpayers over an issue we should not even have to debate.
  I don't know about the Presiding Officer, but I had to borrow some 
money to go to school, and I borrowed it from the Federal Government. 
It was called the National Defense Education Act. They created it back 
in the late 1950s, early 1960s, because we were scared to death of the 
Russians and sputnik. We thought, they can take over the world. They 
have the bomb, and now they are the first in space with that little 
basketball-sized satellite. So we thought it was time for America to 
get up and get moving, and we created, for the first time in our 
history, student loans available to nonveterans. We gave help to 
veterans in the GI bill after World War II, but these were for 
nonveterans. I got one. I signed up for it.

  When I graduated from law school in the late 1960s, they added up all 
the money I had borrowed--college and law school--from the Federal 
Government.
  I remember the day I brought the letter home to my wife, baby in arms 
and another one on the way, and said: My student loans have all been 
added up.
  She said: How much?
  I said: It is $8,500.
  She said: We will never be able to pay that back.
  And I said: I know, but we have to try. We have a year before the 
first payment is due.
  My first job out of law school paid $15,000 a year, to put things in 
perspective.
  Now look what students are faced with today. They are lucky to get 
out with an average indebtedness of $24,000--very lucky. For a lot of 
students, that isn't even possible. They get more deeply in debt as 
they go through school. They say: Well, you told me to finish my 
education so I would have a better life and realize my dream. I can't 
quit now. I have to borrow some more money and finish next year and the 
following year or I have wasted it all. If I am a college dropout, what 
do I have to show for it--no diploma, just the debt.
  So we asked families across Illinois to get in touch with us and tell 
us about student debt as they see it in their lives. We know nationally 
that student debt in October of 2010, for the first time in history, 
surpassed credit card debt. People owe more money on student loans than 
on their credit cards, and it is growing--dramatically growing. When 
you meet these families, it is sometimes a sobering moment.
  I was at a college in Chicago last week and met a student, a lovely 
young lady majoring in art, which my daughter majored in, so I have no 
problems with that because she is a great

[[Page S3019]]

artist and doing well, thank goodness. This young lady said: I am about 
to get my bachelor's degree with a major in art, and my student 
indebtedness at this moment is $80,000. But I am going on for a 
master's. I think it will be about another $60,000 of debt.
  I think she was 25 years old. Think about that. Think about what she 
has just done to herself. First, she did what she was told to do--to 
get a college degree. Then she got so deeply into debt that she is 
going to come to realize--sadly come to realize--it is going to 
influence so many decisions in her life. Will she ever be able to buy a 
car, get married, buy a home, have children? Each one of those 
decisions along the way is going to be based on her student loan 
indebtedness.
  So is it right for us to keep the interest rate low on student loans? 
Of course. Why do we want to make it any worse for her or anyone else 
who borrows money after July 1? We should be doing this, and we 
shouldn't be squabbling over it. We were sent here to solve these 
problems, not to go into filibusters--one more Republican filibuster. I 
don't want to get partisan about it, but they didn't provide a single 
vote--not one--to help us move to this issue.
  So on our Web site we asked families to tell us their stories. I just 
spoke about a young student, but many of these students have parents 
and grandparents who sign up to help them. They say: Yes, we will 
cosign the note because we want our granddaughter or our daughter to 
finish school; let me help.
  About 6 weeks ago, the New York Times reported a story in which a 
woman had her Social Security check garnished for student loans. It 
wasn't a loan she took out, it was a loan she guaranteed for her 
granddaughter. Her granddaughter defaulted, and they went after 
grandma. She now receives a smaller Social Security check because of 
the student loan and her goodness in helping her granddaughter. That is 
the reality of this debt. It trickles through entire families--families 
with guaranteed loans that, when they go into default, mom and dad keep 
working well past what they thought was their retirement age.
  I have to say, the more I watch this, the more I am concerned about 
this student debt bomb that could go off, if it hasn't already. I worry 
about what it will do to these families and to the reputation of a 
college degree. There are people who are skeptical today about 
mortgages. They wonder, why would I take out a mortgage on a home if 
the value of the home is going to plummet? That skepticism doesn't help 
us build hope in communities and neighborhoods. What if we reach that 
level of skepticism when it comes to higher education? So this is part 
of the conversation.

  Let me tell my colleagues about some of the stories I have heard.
  Dewaine Nelson from Rockford contacted our office. Dewaine's daughter 
went to a private college costing about $30,000 a year. She has been a 
file clerk for 11 years since graduating. He wanted to help her, but he 
lost his job in 2001. He says:

       Once you fall on hard times you can never get a good job in 
     the finance or insurance industry. Your credit is no good. 
     Bad credit means no good job.

  Then he decided to go back to school to pursue his MBA in marketing. 
Still, with no decent pay, he couldn't repay his student loan. So he 
went back to school so he could defer the student loan again. He still 
doesn't have a job that pays enough for him to pay off his loan balance 
and help his daughter pay her balance.
  So here we have mom and dad still with student debt and struggling to 
find a decent job.
  Sharon Sikes from Chicago wrote about her son. She lost her job 
shortly before her son started college. Each semester his tuition kept 
going up. This is something we hear about very often. Her son's degree 
is in journalism and mass communication--not a field where you can find 
a lot of jobs these days. His loan payments are about to kick in, and 
he works as a cook in an Irish pub. He makes enough for his basic 
expenses--food and keeping his bicycle running so he can go back and 
forth to work. She said she honestly doesn't know what he is going to 
do when the student loan payments kick in. His debt from the State 
university tuition has left the family with more than $60,000 in loans, 
and he is cooking in an Irish pub.
  Sharon says she is in her sixties and nobody is lining up to give her 
a job. She had hoped to be able to help her son pay his loans off 
sooner. She says:

       He deserves a chance to follow his passion without being 
     saddled with years of debt.

  Jill Shakely from Rockford started out at Rock Valley Community 
College, which I think is a smart decision--to go to a community 
college if you are not sure or at least you want an affordable first 
year or two of college. She started out at Rock Valley, and when she 
graduated in 2002, she decided she wanted to continue her education and 
pursue a 4-year degree. She didn't have any support from her family. 
They couldn't help her pay for it. So she took out students loans. The 
tuition was $26,000 a year, and it added up quickly. She doesn't own a 
home and makes a salary some would say is pretty small. She spends a 
large percentage of her salary on her loans. She would like to go back 
to school but can't take on any more debt. She is worried about how it 
will affect her future. She said that keeping interest rates low will 
help students like her.
  Who wants to argue against this situation? Who believes we ought to 
raise the cost of student loans? Who thinks that is in the best 
interest of this country in terms of encouraging young people to go to 
school and getting them out of school without a mountain of debt which 
crushes them?
  That is what this debate is all about. The fact that we couldn't get 
one single vote from the other side of the aisle--not one--to move to 
this bill to even debate it is a sad commentary.
  This Senate Chamber is supposed to be about deliberation, amendment, 
and debate. At the end of the day we put our fate in the hands of those 
gathered here and have a vote, up or down, win or lose. I know the 
Presiding Officer has had some that have won and some that have lost 
and so have I. But that is what it is supposed to be all about. 
Instead, my voice echoes through an empty Chamber. The people who 
forced the filibuster and stopped us from taking up the student loans 
are gone. Not a one of them is here.
  Last night, I was one of the last speakers, and I looked over there 
to an empty side of the aisle and I said: Of all the people who 
objected to our going to the bill, not a single one of them is here. 
They are all out to dinner. That isn't right.
  I know the Presiding Officer has been pushing for changes in the 
Senate rules. It would strike me that if someone wants to stop the 
consideration of a bill before the Senate, they ought to park their 
posterior in one of these chairs and be prepared to take on all comers 
to explain why. If they don't have the time or inclination to do it, 
then for goodness' sake don't start a filibuster. One of the rule 
changes we have talked about says that if it is that important to stop 
the business of the Senate--as we are doing now--they ought to at least 
have to stay on the floor of the Senate to defend their position. Is 
that too much to ask, that they don't go out to dinner and check in the 
next day to make certain that lunch is going to be served on time?
  I think this issue gets to the heart of what our economy is facing, 
what families are facing, and what the Senate refuses to face. This 
Republican filibuster has stopped us from taking up a measure that 
would reduce the interest rate on student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 
percent. In my State of Illinois, 365,000 students will be affected if 
that interest rate goes up. It isn't fair to them. It isn't fair at 
all. It isn't fair to be stuck in the middle of a filibuster when we 
ought to be rolling up our sleeves and tackling this issue.
  The House passed a bill on student loans. Just to give an idea of how 
there is a different approach to things, the House Republicans--with 
very little, if any, Democratic support--said: OK. We will lower the 
interest rate on student loans, and here is how we will pay for it. We 
will take money out of a preventive health care program. In other 
words, we will reduce childhood immunizations, and the money we save by 
not vaccinating children, we will use that to bring student loan 
interest rates down.
  How about that for a Faustian choice? How about that for a deal with 
the devil? We will run the risk that children will get childhood 
diseases,

[[Page S3020]]

and we will take the savings from that and help the kids who are in 
college. Is that what it has come to now, your money or your life? That 
is the choice we have? That is all? I don't think so.
  Why is it that the Tax Code in this country has become a sacred 
document? One would think that some people, instead of putting their 
hand on the Bible and swearing to uphold the Constitution, put their 
hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Tax Code as it stands, 
without a word being changed. I didn't. That Tax Code is a law written 
by men and women, some of great intellect and some bowing to special 
interests. Our job every year is to look at it and see if it makes 
sense.
  The way we pay for the student loan interest rate to stay affordable 
is closing a loophole in the Tax Code used by accountants and lawyers 
to avoid paying taxes. They have made out pretty well under that 
provision for a while. But why should they have that for life? Are they 
now entitled to that? Is that an entitlement they get for life? I don't 
think so. I think it is a loophole we can close, save the money, and 
reduce student loans--not at the expense of children being immunized 
against whooping cough and measles. That is what it comes down to.
  House Republicans seem to think that is a pretty good tradeoff. I 
don't. Let's at least debate it on the floor of the Senate instead of 
getting locked into a worthless filibuster again and again and again. 
That is where we are.
  Many of us have gone to our official Web sites and invited people 
living in our States to send us their stories about student loans. I 
have read three of them here. I can tell you many more from those I 
witnessed just this last week going through my State, going from 
Chicago to Peoria to Decatur and all points in between. The stories 
just come crushing in one after the other, and they are reminders that 
what we do on the floor of the Senate makes a real difference in the 
lives of families across America.
  I have said it before: I wouldn't be standing here today without 
student loans. The government loaned me the money, and somehow or 
another I paid it back. I didn't think I could, but I did, hoping the 
next generation could use that money to get their own student loans. It 
is part of the kind of trust we have, one generation helping another. 
So are we going to let these students down? Are we going to let this 
filibuster be the end of the conversation?
  I have listened to the Republican leader come to the floor day after 
day and say: Oh, this is just a political stunt. Where is the stunt? 
What it comes down to is we want to bring the bill to the floor and 
open it to an amendment process.
  To my friends on the Republican side, give us your best ideas. Put 
them in amendment form. Bring them to the floor. Let's debate them. 
Let's vote. We will do the same. Who knows, we may find some common 
bipartisan agreement and get this problem solved. We will not get it 
solved stuck in another filibuster, which is where we are right now, 
wasting the time of the Senate and the time of the taxpayers and 
endangering a lot of families across America who desperately need our 
help.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, yesterday I spoke on the floor about the 
Democratic bill to reduce interest rates on student loans, and I was 
lamenting the fact that our Republican colleagues would not even permit 
us to turn to the bill. They were filibustering a motion to proceed to 
the bill which meant we could no longer work on it. That is why this 
floor today is so empty. We should have been here working on a student 
loan bill which is so critical to so many college students and their 
families across the country. The interest rates on these student loans, 
which are the Stafford loans, the Federal subsidized loans, is going to 
go from 3 percent to 6 percent. We want to get it back down. This is 
important to 7.5 million students and their families.
  When I concluded my remarks, Senator Brown from Massachusetts took to 
the floor. He expressed shock that I was concerned about Republican 
filibusters and started to talk about how cooperative the Republicans 
have been, pointing to a few issues where we have worked together. 
Look, I am here to say that working together in a bipartisan manner on 
a few issues is fine, but we need to work together in a bipartisan 
manner on almost all the issues we work on because the American people 
are counting on us. Because there are a handful of issues on which the 
Republicans cooperated, let's not come down to the floor and say 
everything is perfect and Republicans are not blocking us, when, in 
fact, they are blocking us.
  The Democrats essentially retook the Senate in 2007. Since then, 
these Republican filibusters have been off the charts. Don't take my 
word for it, listen to congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman 
Ornstein. They recently wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post. 
It was based on a study. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From The Washington Post, Apr. 27]

           Let's Just Say It: The Republicans Are the Problem

               (By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein)

       Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently 
     captured on video asserting that there are ``78 to 81'' 
     Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. 
     Of course, it's not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from 
     either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What 
     made West's comment--right out of the McCarthyite playbook of 
     the 1950s--so striking was the almost complete lack of 
     condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other 
     major party figures, including the remaining presidential 
     candidates.
       It's not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is 
     that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for 
     granted.
       We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for 
     more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this 
     dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both 
     parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we 
     have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the 
     problem lies with the Republican Party.
       The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American 
     politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of 
     compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, 
     evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its 
     political opposition.
       When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes 
     it nearly impossible for the political system to deal 
     constructively with the country's challenges.
       ``Both sides do it'' or ``There is plenty of blame to go 
     around'' are the traditional refuges for an American news 
     media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political 
     scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing 
     partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in 
     their search for common ground, propose solutions that move 
     both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable 
     when one side is so far out of reach.
       It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican 
     Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary 
     moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the 
     Senate--think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, 
     Chuck Hagel--are virtually extinct.
       The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while 
     losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in 
     the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a 
     more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed 
     to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal 
     policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard 
     line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to 
     somewhere behind their goal post.
       What happened? Of course, there were larger forces at work 
     beyond the realignment of the South. They included the 
     mobilization of social conservatives after the 1973 Roe v. 
     Wade decision, the anti-tax movement launched in 1978 by 
     California's Proposition 13, the rise of conservative talk 
     radio after a congressional pay raise in 1989, and the 
     emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs. But the real move 
     to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt Gingrich and 
     Grover Norquist.
       From the day he entered Congress in 1979, Gingrich had a 
     strategy to create a Republican majority in the House: 
     convincing voters that the institution was so corrupt that 
     anyone would be better than the incumbents, especially those 
     in the Democratic majority. It took him 16 years, but by 
     bringing ethics

[[Page S3021]]

     charges against Democratic leaders; provoking them into 
     overreactions that enraged Republicans and united them to 
     vote against Democratic initiatives; exploiting scandals to 
     create even more public disgust with politicians; and then 
     recruiting GOP candidates around the country to run against 
     Washington, Democrats and Congress, Gingrich accomplished his 
     goal.
       Ironically, after becoming speaker, Gingrich wanted to 
     enhance Congress's reputation and was content to compromise 
     with President Bill Clinton when it served his interests. But 
     the forces Gingrich unleashed destroyed whatever comity 
     existed across party lines, activated an extreme and 
     virulently anti-Washington base--most recently represented by 
     tea party activists--and helped drive moderate Republicans 
     out of Congress. (Some of his progeny, elected in the early 
     1990s, moved to the Senate and polarized its culture in the 
     same way.)
       Norquist, meanwhile, founded Americans for Tax Reform in 
     1985 and rolled out his Taxpayer Protection Pledge the 
     following year. The pledge, which binds its signers to never 
     support a tax increase (that includes closing tax loopholes), 
     had been signed as of last year by 238 of the 242 House 
     Republicans and 41 of the 47 GOP senators, according to ATR. 
     The Norquist tax pledge has led to other pledges, on issues 
     such as climate change, that create additional litmus tests 
     that box in moderates and make cross-party coalitions nearly 
     impossible. For Republicans concerned about a primary 
     challenge from the right, the failure to sign such pledges is 
     simply too risky.
       Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the 
     window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama 
     administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with 
     vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in 
     the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize 
     the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once 
     relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given 
     Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied 
     even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. 
     And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation 
     process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the 
     head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to 
     keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being 
     implemented.
       In the third and now fourth years of the Obama presidency, 
     divided government has produced something closer to complete 
     gridlock than we have ever seen in our time in Washington, 
     with partisan divides even leading last year to America's 
     first credit downgrade.
       On financial stabilization and economic recovery, on 
     deficits and debt, on climate change and health-care reform, 
     Republicans have been the force behind the widening 
     ideological gaps and the strategic use of partisanship. In 
     the presidential campaign and in Congress, GOP leaders have 
     embraced fanciful policies on taxes and spending, kowtowing 
     to their party's most strident voices.
       Republicans often dismiss nonpartisan analyses of the 
     nature of problems and the impact of policies when those 
     assessments don't fit their ideology. In the face of the 
     deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the 
     party's leaders and their outside acolytes insisted on 
     obeisance to a supply-side view of economic growth--thus 
     fulfilling Norquist's pledge--while ignoring contrary 
     considerations.
       The results can border on the absurd: In early 2009, 
     several of the eight Republican co-sponsors of a bipartisan 
     health-care reform plan dropped their support; by early 2010, 
     the others had turned on their own proposal so that there 
     would be zero GOP backing for any bill that came within a 
     mile of Obama's reform initiative. As one co-sponsor, Sen. 
     Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), told The Washington Post's Ezra 
     Klein: ``I liked it because it was bipartisan. I wouldn't 
     have voted for it.''
       And seven Republican co-sponsors of a Senate resolution to 
     create a debt-reduction panel voted in January 2010 against 
     their own resolution, solely to keep it from getting to the 
     60-vote threshold Republicans demanded and thus denying the 
     president a seeming victory.
       This attitude filters down far deeper than the party 
     leadership. Rank-and-file GOP voters endorse the strategy 
     that the party's elites have adopted, eschewing compromise to 
     solve problems and insisting on principle, even if it leads 
     to gridlock. Democratic voters, by contrast, along with self-
     identified independents, are more likely to favor deal-making 
     over deadlock.
       Democrats are hardly blameless, and they have their own 
     extreme wing and their own predilection for hardball 
     politics. But these tendencies do not routinely veer outside 
     the normal bounds of robust politics. If anything, under the 
     presidencies of Clinton and Obama, the Democrats have become 
     more of a status-quo party. They are centrist protectors of 
     government, reluctantly willing to revamp programs and trim 
     retirement and health benefits to maintain its central 
     commitments in the face of fiscal pressures.
       No doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward 
     George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they 
     worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No 
     Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate 
     for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps 
     taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key 
     votes for the Bush administration's financial bailout at the 
     height of the economic crisis in 2008. The difference is 
     striking.
       The GOP's evolution has become too much for some longtime 
     Republicans. Former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska called 
     his party ``irresponsible'' in an interview with the 
     Financial Times in August, at the height of the debt-ceiling 
     battle. ``I think the Republican Party is captive to 
     political movements that are very ideological, that are very 
     narrow,'' he said. ``I've never seen so much intolerance as I 
     see today in American politics.''
       And Mike Lofgren, a veteran Republican congressional 
     staffer, wrote an anguished diatribe last year about why he 
     was ending his career on the Hill after nearly three decades. 
     ``The Republican Party is becoming less and less like a 
     traditional political party in a representative democracy and 
     becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the 
     intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century 
     Europe,'' he wrote on the Truthout Web site.
       Shortly before Rep. West went off the rails with his 
     accusations of communism in the Democratic Party, political 
     scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, who have long 
     tracked historical trends in political polarization, said 
     their studies of congressional votes found that Republicans 
     are now more conservative than they have been in more than a 
     century. Their data show a dramatic uptick in polarization, 
     mostly caused by the sharp rightward move of the GOP.
       If our democracy is to regain its health and vitality, the 
     culture and ideological center of the Republican Party must 
     change. In the short run, without a massive (and unlikely) 
     across-the-board rejection of the GOP at the polls, that will 
     not happen. If anything, Washington's ideological divide will 
     probably grow after the 2012 elections.
       In the House, some of the remaining centrist and 
     conservative ``Blue Dog'' Democrats have been targeted for 
     extinction by redistricting, while even ardent tea party 
     Republicans, such as freshman Rep. Alan Nunnelee (Miss.), 
     have faced primary challenges from the right for being too 
     accommodationist. And Mitt Romney's rhetoric and positions 
     offer no indication that he would govern differently if his 
     party captures the White House and both chambers of Congress.
       We understand the values of mainstream journalists, 
     including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a 
     balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts 
     reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely 
     to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way 
     that reality is portrayed to the public.
       Our advice to the press: Don't seek professional safety 
     through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing 
     views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking 
     hostages, at what risks and to what ends?
       Also, stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by 
     treating a 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly 
     didn't intend it to be. Report individual senators' abusive 
     use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses 
     a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority 
     support.
       Look ahead to the likely consequences of voters' choices in 
     the November elections. How would the candidates govern? What 
     could they accomplish? What differences can people expect 
     from a unified Republican or Democratic government, or one 
     divided between the parties?
       In the end, while the press can make certain political 
     choices understandable, it is up to voters to decide. If they 
     can punish ideological extremism at the polls and look 
     skeptically upon candidates who profess to reject all 
     dialogue and bargaining with opponents, then an insurgent 
     outlier party will have some impetus to return to the center. 
     Otherwise, our politics will get worse before it gets better.

  Mrs. BOXER. Here is the title of their piece, ``Let's Just Say It, 
The Republicans Are The Problem.''
  They explain that in the past they looked at Congress and thought 
both parties were to blame. But on reflection, as they studied the 
facts--not the rhetoric but the facts--it was Republicans who are 
causing all the problems. Here is what they write:

       The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major 
     national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon 
     of obstruction applied even to widely supported bills or 
     Presidential nominations.

  All we have to do is watch the Senate or certainly when one is in the 
Senate we realize these scholars, Mann and Ornstein, are absolutely 
right. In this Congress, the 112th Congress, we have already seen 48 
Republican filibusters; 48 times the Republicans stopped us from doing 
our work. But don't get the impression this was new behavior because it 
did not just start in the 112th Congress, it started way before. In the 
111th Congress, which covered 2009 and 2010, Republicans conducted 91 
filibusters. In the 110th Congress, 2007 and 2008, they conducted 112 
filibusters. So far this year we have had 48 Republican filibusters. In 
the Congress before that we had 91, and the one before that we had 112.

[[Page S3022]]

  What does this mean? It means that in all those times we were unable 
to do the work of the American people because one party stopped it. 
There have been more filibusters by the Republicans in the 6 years 
since Democrats took over the Senate than there were in the prior 10 
years. I want to remember one of those times because I was sitting down 
there in the manager's chair, coming out of my committee, Environment 
and Public Works, with a near unanimous vote on a little program called 
the Economic Development Administration. This EDA has been in place 
for--I want to say 50 years. It has been in place for 50 years--5 0; 
not 15--50 years through Presidents Republican and Democratic. It is a 
beautiful program because what it does is it takes some modest Federal 
funds and leverages States' money, local money and private money and it 
comes into areas that are having difficulty with job creation and 
invests that money there. As a magnet it creates all of these 
contributions, and we have seen hundreds of thousands of jobs created 
as a result.

  So I come to the floor to get this little bill reauthorized. After 
coming out of my committee with a strong bipartisan vote, it is 
filibustered. I stood down there for 5 days, and I could not believe 
it. They are filibustering a bill that would create and save hundreds 
of thousands of jobs.
  We also saw these Republican filibusters when we tried to say 
millionaires should pay their fair share, which would have reduced the 
deficit by billions. Oh, no, they could not stand to have us debate 
that so they filibustered. They filibustered a bill to eliminate tax 
subsidies to big oil and gas companies that are making record profits 
and getting subsidies that they have gotten for 30 to 40 years. No, we 
were not allowed to go to that.
  And then, of course, the most recent filibuster by Senate Republicans 
is on this critically important legislation to cut interest rates on 
student loans. They are going to double on July 1. Oh, no. They 
wouldn't even let us go to the bill. I say that despite the 
protestations of Senator Brown of Massachusetts, this has got to stop. 
He cited three or four times that we worked together. I say good for 
that; I am happy for that. That does not in any way change the fact 
that we face filibuster after filibuster, 48 times in this Congress so 
far now.
  I hope every college student in this country who has an opportunity 
is watching this Chamber. This Chamber should have been bustling today 
with people talking and working together, offering amendments so we 
could cut these interest rates on student loans. College students and 
high school students who want to go to college, and their parents, 
grandparents, aunts, and uncles ought to understand that this floor is 
not filled today passing this legislation because of a Republican 
filibuster.
  What we do here matters. We could save students thousands of dollars 
on the life of their loans. These are student loans for the middle 
class. More than 75 percent of the borrowers in the program come from 
families with incomes below $60,000 a year. This is not some fun and 
games, but my Republican friends and their presumptive Presidential 
nominee want to cut taxes for people who earn millions of dollars. They 
want to give back an average tax cut of $250,000 a year, and they don't 
have it in their hearts to lower student loans for families who earn 
less than $60,000 a year. They call for permanent tax cuts for the 
people who don't need them and again they block the way for us to help 
the middle-class students to get a break.
  Yes, I hope college students are paying close attention to this 
debate. I know some of them from the great State of California whom I 
represent are paying attention. I have heard from some of them, and I 
will have some of their comments for the Record.
  Delmita Turner of Rancho Cordova, CA writes:

       I am the single mother of three children ages 7, 14, and 
     20. My daughter Khendel is in college and we have had to get 
     student loans to pay for her tuition. I am also in college 
     and have student loans as well. An increase would put a 
     tremendous strain on an already stretched budget.
       After our family suffered nearly every type of loss one 
     could, including death, foreclosure, divorce, and 
     unemployment all within a year, I decided to go back to 
     school with the hopes of making life better for my family. I 
     began working a year ago last December after being unemployed 
     for 2 years.

  Now I ask: How American is that? We always strive to be better. Here 
is a woman who went through death, foreclosure, divorce, and 
unemployment within 1 year. She decided to make life better for her 
family. She began working a year ago last December after being 
unemployed for 2 years.
  She continues: ``So please consider how this will impact so many of 
us.''
  I am asking my Republican friends--as we have another vote on this I 
think tomorrow morning--to think of Delmita Turner of California and 
what this means to her.
  Then there is Joseph Briones of San Fernando, CA. He writes:

       I am a senior in high school who will be attending college 
     this fall. My dad is unemployed and a cancer survivor and my 
     mom is working part-time. These conditions put a large stress 
     on my myself as well as on my parents to attend my top choice 
     of college, Westmount College.
       We did not receive financial aid from the state and we have 
     an immense amount remaining to pay for my upcoming 
     educational years. We are going to be taking out student 
     loans to pay for college. Please do not allow the passage of 
     the bill that will increase the interest on student loans. We 
     rely on these loans and it is difficult to pay them back for 
     some students as it is. Please do not make it a larger burden 
     for students to go to college.

  So tomorrow when we take up this bill again, I hope my Republican 
friends will stand down and think of Joseph Briones of San Fernando, 
CA, who is making a very pointed plea that he relies on these loans, 
and it is going to be very difficult if the interest rates are doubled.
  Then there is Rachel Zavarella of San Jose, CA. She says:

       Increasing Stafford loan interest rates only kicks students 
     and borrowers when we are down . . . Increasing student loan 
     interest is another dirty trick to redistribute wealth to the 
     top, and it's disgusting and unacceptable. I want you to vote 
     for students and borrowers by voting yes on the bill.

  Mr. President, that is just three stories from my State. I know in 
your beautiful State of Oregon, which has so many wonderful 
universities, you could have dozens of stories like this. Clearly this 
is not a time to increase loan rates for students. This should not be a 
partisan matter. Why would every single Republican vote no? I guess it 
is their ideology. Tax breaks for the rich, rich, rich, rich, and 
nothing for the middle class.
  If anyone wants to know the difference between the two parties, this 
is the moment. It used to be a little harder to describe the 
differences between the parties. When I was young, both parties stood 
here and fought for the middle class, for students, for the 
environment, and for women. It isn't that way anymore. It just is not.
  If we say we are here for the next generation, which all of us say 
all the time one way or the other, then you don't allow student loan 
interest rates to double. You don't allow it. We know how to fix it. We 
found a very simple way to pay for this that makes sense. Closing a tax 
loophole doesn't hurt anybody. Look at yesterday's vote. It was not 
good; it was not pretty.

  I am glad Senator Harry Reid is going to give us another chance to 
change that, and I hope my Republican friends are now hearing from 
their constituents back home. I hope when they come here tomorrow they 
will cast a ``yes'' vote and let us proceed to this bill and let us do 
our work. Let us stand for the people who need us to stand for them, 
the middle class of this great country. We know why the country is 
great; it is because of the middle class. We need to make sure they 
have the opportunity to go to college and not have this burden on them 
that is so heavy it becomes too heavy for them to bear. Pretty soon 
they will stop going to college because they don't want to have that 
burden on their back.
  We have a chance to do the right thing. I hope we will. Let the 
record show these filibusters are outrageous and they are historic in 
nature. We have never had them before. We have never had such a lack of 
cooperation from Republicans before, and it has been a sad several 
years where we have seen filibuster after filibuster, even stopping us 
from going to a bill. Tomorrow maybe we can come together and get on 
this bill and do our work.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S3023]]

  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I have followed with great interest this 
week the conversation in the Senate about student loans, the issue we 
are currently on, to proceed to a bill on student loan interest. I have 
followed it with great interest for a couple of reasons.
  First of all, in the State of Florida, obviously, and across the 
country, there are thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of people 
who either have student loans and are paying them back or are relying 
on them to go to school in the future. So it is totally an issue that 
affects the State of Florida, where I come from.
  I have a personal interest in the student loan issue as well. I think 
I have said on the floor before that my parents worked very hard, but 
they were never able to save enough money to pay for my college 
education. So I relied on grants and on loans for undergraduate 
education, but especially for my law school education. I came back to 
Miami to go to law school. I am glad I went to the University of Miami. 
I am proud to have gone there, and I think the education I got there, 
my legal education, was very good. It also happened to be very 
expensive. I relied on student loans to be able to pay that, so much so 
that when I graduated from law school in 1996 I graduated with a law 
degree and a significant amount of student debt that I had accumulated 
throughout 7 years of study.
  In fact, I am still paying one of those loans today. I think--I may 
be wrong, but I know of one--I know of only one other Senator who is 
paying student loans right now. I pay, as I have joked in the past, 
about $723 a month to somebody named Sallie Mae, which is, all joking 
aside, a servicer that collects on these loans. So it is an issue I 
understand and care about on a personal level, as well as because of 
the people I represent.
  This issue we are discussing this week has allowed me to use it as a 
point of illustration to the people back home who are watching this 
debate. After having spent my first year here, one of the questions I 
get the most is, What is it like in the Senate?
  Let me begin by saying I am honored and privileged to serve here. 
There isn't a day that I don't walk into this building, even into this 
very room, and not be taken aback by the history that has been made on 
this floor, by the great men and women who have served our country from 
it, and by the wonderful Americans with whom I serve even now. I have 
bragged to people who are watching or to whom I have spoken that I have 
never had a bad experience with anyone in the Senate in the year and a 
half I have been here, and I am very proud to be a part of this 
institution.
  However, there are things about it that trouble me. Particularly, at 
this moment in American history, and maybe as a result of what is 
happening this week, circumstances allow me to illustrate that better 
than any other week since I have been here.
  Everyone agrees that interest rates on student loans cannot go up. 
Everyone agrees. There hasn't been a debate on that. I haven't run into 
anybody in either party who has come to me and said: Let the interest 
rate go up. Let students pay more. There isn't any argument about that. 
The argument is simply this: How do we pay for it? We have to pay for 
it because if we are going to keep the interest rates down on these 
federally subsidized loans, we have to pay for it. We have to find the 
money from somewhere to pay for it. So the debate and the disagreement, 
to the extent it is a complicated disagreement--and I don't believe it 
is--the disagreement is not about the student loan interest rate; the 
disagreement is about how we pay for the cost of keeping the rate low 
for another year. There is a difference of opinion.
  I am new to the Senate. I am not new to legislation. I spent 9 years 
in the Florida Legislature and 2 years as the Speaker. We dealt with 
complicated issues there as well. What we would do in those instances 
where there was a disagreement, not on what we wanted to accomplish but 
on how to get there, is we worked on it. We would sit people down and 
say it is not that much money in terms of Federal standards--it sounds 
crazy to say that because we are talking about billions of dollars--but 
from a Federal standpoint, it is not that complicated an issue. Let's 
sit down. Let's get some like-minded people together and let's figure 
out a bipartisan way to pay for what we all agree we need to do. That 
is the normal, regular way to deal with an issue such as this.
  That is not what has happened. Why hasn't that happened? Why have 
smart, well-educated, intelligent people who serve in this Chamber not 
met and discussed a way to pay for this? It is really not that 
complicated. It wouldn't take that long to come up with a way to pay 
for it that both sides agree on. Why hasn't that happened?
  The answer to that question is something people back home are not 
going to like, and people who are here today visiting are not going to 
like to hear, and whoever is watching on television right now isn't 
going to like. The reason is because that is the way things have been 
since I have gotten here. It is about politics.
  Shocking as that may be, there is politics in this process. That is 
what is influencing us today.
  A few weeks ago, the President made a decision that this was an issue 
he wanted to use. His campaign folks made a decision that student loan 
debt and the interest rate was a perfect opportunity to use as, yet 
again, another wedge issue. The latest wedge issue, and we have seen a 
series of them, is let's campaign on the idea that Republicans are not 
in favor of students, and let's use the student loan issue as an 
example of that. Of course, those plans kind of got messed up when 
Republicans said: We agree with you. We can't let student interest 
rates go up either. So they were off balance for a couple of days.
  By the way, the President continued to travel the country and 
campaign on keeping student loan rates down even though no one was 
against them. He was campaigning against his opponents on this issue 
even though there were no opponents on this issue.
  But, nevertheless, after a couple of days of figuring out they were 
going to lose this wedge issue, they came up with a second way to deal 
with it; that is, let's bring this issue to a vote on the Senate floor, 
but let's build it in such a way--let's put a bill on the floor of the 
Senate that we know will fail, that we know Republicans can't vote for. 
It wasn't: let's meet and see where we can agree on how to pay for this 
so we can get something done. It was: let's put a bill on the floor 
that we know Republicans will never support, designed specifically to 
fail, so we can then spend the week talking about this on the Sunday 
talk shows and speeches on the floor and missives from the campaign. It 
is about messaging.

  In a country where our national debt now equals the size of our 
economy; in a country where we are 5, 6 months away from catastrophic 
increases in taxes; in a country where just last Friday we learned that 
job creation and job growth is stagnant, where millions of Americans 
have been out of work for 2 years or longer; in a country where 
millions of Americans have stopped looking for work because they have 
become so depressed, the Senate has wasted yet another week on a show 
when, in fact, this is an easy issue for us to have come together and 
solved.
  This is not new, by the way. This has been the mode of operation here 
for most of the weeks I have been in the Senate. It is a pretty 
familiar pattern. The campaign of the President decides on an issue 
they want to use to divide Americans for electoral purposes, the Senate 
offers up a bill they know Republicans will vote against, and then they 
spend a week giving speeches on it. The only difference is they are 
doubling down: We are going to vote on the exact same thing a second 
time, just to drive the point home.
  Here is why this bothers me. No. 1, there are real issues this 
country faces, issues that deserve a sense of urgency, issues that 
deserve every single person who serves here to solve. This is one of 
them, by the way. We don't have time to waste on shows. It bothers me.
  The second reason it bothers me is these are real people who are 
being impacted by this issue. There are real people out there who, 
because they can't find a job when they graduate, have to get a 
forbearance. Forbearance

[[Page S3024]]

means they have to call their lender and say they can't pay their 
loans. Do my colleagues know what happens when we get a forbearance on 
our loans? It compounds. It sits there. It is delayed. It is not 
delinquent, but it compounds. The interest rate is added to the 
principal. So by the time a person starts paying it, their loan is even 
bigger than the loan they took out to go to college.
  There are other people who can only afford to make X amount of 
payments because they are not making as much money. Maybe they didn't 
find the job they thought they were going to get, so all they can do is 
pay interest. So that means by the time they finish paying off these 
loans, their kids will be in college.
  Let me tell my colleagues what it means in the real life of someone 
who has these loans because I still have them. What it means in the 
life of a person who has a loan such as this is the following: They 
can't save for their own kids' college, which means not only will they 
have their student loan debt, but their children will be stuck with it 
as well.
  What bothers me about this issue is that instead of solving it, we 
have spent the week playing a game with it while real people are out 
there scared to death--real students, real parents, real families who 
are facing the threat of not just an increase in the interest rate but 
of an economy that doesn't have a job for them.
  Do we think the interest rate is the biggest risk these people are 
facing? It is not. The interest rate is a problem. Not having a job is 
a catastrophe. The interest rate could be zero. If a person doesn't 
have a job, how are they going to pay it? That is the No. 1 issue 
facing these graduates. No one is doing anything about it.
  Here is what I suggest. If this was a place that was really working 
to solve problems, what we would have done and what we would do right 
now is stop this process, go back there somewhere, get a few people 
together who know how to solve this, and come back here. I guarantee 
that if we decided we wanted to solve it, it would not take long.
  Here is what else I guarantee. This is going to get solved. My 
colleagues can mark my words. A few weeks from now they will come up 
with a deal or a bill that will have enough votes to pass the House and 
Senate, and this will get solved. But not before we score political 
points, right? This will get solved, but not before the people who care 
more about politics than policy score their political points on this 
issue.
  Now, look, I have been around politics. I understand this is an 
election year and election year stuff is going to happen. But why are 
we playing with the lives of real people? These are real people who are 
hurting, and their lives and their experiences and their worries are 
being used as a pawn in a political game. And it is wrong.
  I will make another prediction to my colleagues. Next week it will be 
another wedge issue of the week. Next week we will be right back here 
with another bill that was designed to fail on purpose so we can get 
another week's worth of talking points on yet another issue.
  The good news is--people in this city, unfortunately, think they are 
smarter than they really are. People back home know all of this. They 
can see it for what it is. People aren't dumb. The American people 
certainly aren't dumb. They can see right through this stuff, and they 
understand exactly what is happening.
  So my suggestion would be that on this issue, let's come together. 
Let's say this is one of the issues that is so important, that impacts 
so many people in such a significant way, that it should be above 
politics. Let's get together over the next 48 hours. It doesn't seem as 
though this place is overworked when we look around the room.
  What are we doing all week? What is going on all week? We voted on a 
few judges, and we have given a bunch of speeches. Why don't we go 
somewhere and get a group of people to work on this issue and come back 
with a solution? This can be solved.
  What is going on now is a disservice to the people who sent us here. 
They deserve better. They really do. The American people deserve 
better. The people we represent, the people who hired us to do the job 
we have now, deserve better than this sort of theater. The Senate has 
become a theater. It has become a show. That is why people get grossed 
out by politics. That is why people watch the news at night and just 
don't understand this whole thing. They have a right to be frustrated. 
They have a right to be upset. They have a right to be impatient with 
us because nothing is happening on the issues that matter to their real 
lives.
  I hope this pattern will stop. I get it. There are still going to be 
plenty of other issues we are going to have arguments about during this 
election year, and that is good for our country that we have a good 
debate on the issues of the day. But on the ones we can solve, on the 
ones we agree on that impact the real lives of real people, let's stop 
the games.
  Let's get something done.
  Thank you. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I cannot believe we have come to the 
floor of the Senate at a time of economic hardship and recovery for 
millions of families, a time where jobs are scarce, the need for a 
skilled workforce is critical, and student loans are about to double, 
only to have those on the other side turn this into yet another 
filibuster, another capitulation to those on the far right of their 
party--those who are so far right that when they look back along the 
political spectrum they can only see the small image of their hero, 
Ronald Reagan, fading in the distance.
  They have gone so far to the right that they can no longer see any 
heroes, not even their own. So here we are with our side once again 
debating the obvious and the other side defending the indefensible 
position of the far right.
  We are looking for common sense, reason, and fairness. We are, that 
is, looking to govern fairly for all. They are looking to play politics 
that benefit a few.
  We are asking to stop interest rates on student loans from doubling 
for 7 million Americans by closing a gaping tax loophole that those who 
have benefited most from this economy can drive an S corporation 
through. My Republican friends are once again saying no. They are once 
again attempting to govern from the extreme, once again demanding that 
even closing an obvious tax loophole that benefits the wealthiest is an 
unacceptable government intrusion but that ending preventive care for 
those who are struggling with rising health care costs is the best 
option.
  Can they be serious? Can we be standing in this Chamber saying that 
the most reasonable option to prevent student loans from doubling is 
not commonsense tax reform but ending breast cancer screening for 
millions of women? Is that the view from the far right of the political 
spectrum? I ask my colleagues on the other side do they truly believe 
that is a fair option? Have we run through all other possible options 
to have reached a point where we can now say: The only arrow left in 
the quiver is to end preventive care as we know it. Have we already 
ended all outrageous tax loopholes for the wealthy? Have we already 
ended subsidies to Big Oil that will make $1 trillion over the next 10 
years and yet we give them $24 billion of tax cuts? Have we ended the 
Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent and now have no other option than 
to end preventive health care for women, for millions of Americans 
whose health depends on it?
  Unfortunately, it seems our Republican friends have once again put 
partisanship and politics first. Their budget prioritized tax breaks 
for the wealthy over keeping college costs down for middle-class 
families. Only when they realized this would not play well politically 
did they reverse course and drop their objections to keeping student 
loan rates lower because, they said, no, that is not the government's 
role. But then they said: OK. We will climb on board with that idea but 
only under certain conditions.
  Rather than close a special-interest loophole that only a small 
minority of

[[Page S3025]]

wealthy businesses can exploit, they would rather cut funding for 
children's vaccines, mammograms, and other critical services. This is 
the classic case of giving with one hand and taking with the other and 
all without asking the wealthiest Americans--those who have reaped the 
most rewards and benefited the most, particularly in tax breaks they 
have received over the last almost decade--to help the country, simply 
to help the country at this critical time.
  If that does not tell us about the priorities of each party, I do not 
know what will.
  These preventive health services not only improve people's health and 
their lives, they also reduce the cost of health care. That is because 
it is a lot easier and less costly to treat illnesses when they are 
first detected.
  When women have access to affordable mammograms, their doctors will 
be far more likely to catch breast cancer in its early stages, when it 
is most treatable and least expensive to cure.
  When we give a child a simple inexpensive measles vaccine, we do not 
have to worry about expensive treatment for measles later on.
  When we help people quit smoking, we dramatically reduce the cost of 
treating that individual for a whole host of illnesses.
  The saying, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,'' 
could not be more appropriate to this debate.
  For a party that loves to preach about fiscal responsibility, it 
boggles my mind that they would fight to cut preventive care that will 
reduce health care costs but allow tax loopholes to stay open.
  Republicans decided to make a target of these programs, not because 
of substantive issues--I would respect that--but just because, plain 
and simple, they were included in the President's health care bill. As 
we know, as the distinguished minority leader said, it is all about 
defeating the President. The problem with that is, it is not about the 
President failing, it is about the Nation failing at one of the most 
critical times in its history. They lost the health care debate in 
2010, and they have spent every day since trying to refight that 
battle.
  Now Republicans will try to scare people into thinking that closing 
this corporate tax loophole will kill small businesses. That is the 
mantra we hear every time. But, actually, according to Citizens for Tax 
Justice:

       [C]losing this loophole will actually help most small 
     businesses, which are currently subsidizing the minority who 
     abuse it to avoid [paying] payroll taxes.

  Isn't that interesting? So most small businesses are out there 
meeting the economic challenge every day. They pay payroll taxes, but 
those who are taking advantage of this loophole do not. It seems to me 
we would be giving small businesses a far better competitive advantage.
  Let's be clear: The vast majority of small businesses pay their fair 
share into Medicare. But this loophole--affectionately dubbed the 
Edwards/Gingrich loophole--has allowed certain professionals such as 
former Senator John Edwards and former Speaker Newt Gingrich to avoid 
paying millions of dollars into the Medicare Program. Technically, they 
were not wrong to take advantage of this loophole. We were wrong to 
allow it to even be available.
  But enough about the details on how we pay for it. This debate is all 
about people, all about families struggling to pay for college. As the 
first person in my family to go to college, who had to rely on Federal 
grants and loans to pay tuition, I have a firsthand appreciation of the 
importance of giving all students the opportunity to pursue their 
dreams.

  For students struggling to pay for college and racking up debt, this 
is not an academic argument. The extra $1,000 they would have to pay 
each year is not theoretical money. It is the difference between being 
able to repay their loans and entering the workforce with good credit 
versus being overwhelmed by debt and going into default.
  Recently, I had the pleasure of having a roundtable and speaking to 
students from Montclair State University in my home State of New Jersey 
about how the interest rate would affect them.
  I heard from Emily Delgado, a first-generation American and the first 
person from her family also to go to college. She just completed her 
freshman year at Montclair. Despite working for the college as a 
student mentor, Emily will still be saddled with approximately $20,000 
in debt by the time she graduates. If she decides to go on to graduate 
school after that, then, of course, that will rise significantly.
  She told me she cannot even bring herself to calculate how much the 
interest rate hike will cost her because, in her words, ``it will just 
crush my dreams.''
  Nick Weber, works three--not one, not two, but three--part-time jobs 
to help pay for college. Despite these three jobs, Nick only makes 
around $175 per week, which is about how much extra he would have to 
pay in interest every month if we do not act now. He does not think 
that is fair, and neither do I.
  A student by the name of Jamie Sommer--who dreams of one day becoming 
a professor--works part time for the school, but her income hardly puts 
a dent in her debt, and she fears she will not be able to afford 
graduate school, she will never realize her dream.
  Emily and Nick and Jamie and all the other students who are 
struggling to pay for college deserve to be able to realize their hopes 
and dreams and aspirations. It falls to us--all of us in this Chamber--
to do all we can to keep those dreams alive.
  These students deserve our support. They deserve the common sense of 
a community that understands we have to reduce the deficit but we 
cannot balance the budget on the backs of the next generation. We 
cannot cash in their dreams and let those with the most cash out. We 
need a fair solution, not political dogma.
  These students have worked hard. They deserve better. They are not 
asking for a handout. They studied hard in high school, got good 
grades, took out loans, and got jobs to pay for college. They are 
working toward a better life, doing what every parent dreams of for 
their children: to do well, build a decent life for themselves and 
their family, and give something back to their community and to the 
economy.
  They epitomize everything we want our young people to be. All they 
are asking in return is fairness--not a political sleight of hand that 
helps them with their student loans, but in the process takes away 
their health care. All they are asking is for us not to make it harder 
for them, for us not to add yet another stress to their lives. 
Certainly, it is our obligation to not shut down their dreams of a 
higher education. For it is in their dreams for a better life that the 
economic future of this Nation will be built.
  We are globally challenged--globally challenged--for the creation of 
a product or the delivery of a service in terms of human capital. The 
boundaries of mankind have largely been erased in the pursuit of human 
capital. So an engineer's report is done in India and sent back for a 
fraction of the cost in the United States. A radiologist's report is 
done in Northern Island and read by your doctor at your local hospital 
or if you have a problem with your credit card, as I recently did, you 
end up with a call center in South Africa.
  In the pursuit of human capital for a product or service, we are 
globally challenged. For the Nation to continue to be a global economic 
leader, it needs to be at the apex of the curve of intellect--the most 
highly educated generation of Americans the Nation has ever had. We 
cannot achieve that if we have students who have to forgo not only 
their dreams but the ability to help the Nation compete globally by 
getting a world-class education.
  We owe them every chance to achieve their dreams and to help us make 
this another American century. Isn't that the least we can do? Isn't 
the choice clear? Let's choose closing a tax loophole that is actually 
creating challenges to small businesses that are paying their payroll 
taxes, and let's preserve the preventive health care that will improve 
the quality of the lives of our fellow citizens and, at the same time, 
save our health care system hundreds of millions of dollars.
  I think that choice is pretty clear--the choice the Senate should 
take clearly on behalf of our students of the future and our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.

[[Page S3026]]

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, earlier today, just a few minutes ago 
as I was presiding where the Senator from Minnesota is now sitting, I 
listened to my colleagues speak on this issue of interest rates on 
student loans. I was particularly interested in the speech of a 
colleague who came to the floor and said this bill that is designed to 
prevent interest rates from doubling is all political show. The concept 
of it being a political show is difficult for me to get my hands 
around. Quite frankly, the President didn't set July as the date 
student loans would double in cost. That date was set by legislation 
that was passed in the Senate and in the House and sent to the 
President. It is that date, just 2 months from now, that brings forth 
the urgency on this issue--Presidential campaign or no Presidential 
campaign.
  It is also important to recognize that this is not a debate at this 
moment about final adoption of a bill. It is about beginning the 
process of debating the bill. It is a motion to proceed. For those 
unfamiliar with Senate process, well, this is a motion that says this 
is an issue that, because of its urgency, should be on the floor now 
for us to work on, and everybody in this Chamber knows it cannot pass 
without 60 votes. As the debate unfolds, amendments are debated and 
hopefully a path is found that will produce the 60 votes necessary to 
send it on to the House and to the President's desk.
  So I differ with my colleague, with whom I actually have collaborated 
on a number of projects. My colleague sees this differently. He sees 
this issue as one of politics. I see it as one of an urgent need in 
America for our students to have a chance to go to college with 
affordable financing, and that affordable financing will expire a few 
weeks from now. It is incumbent upon this body to take up this issue 
and provide a pathway to prevent that from happening.
  I am struck by the voices I am hearing from Oregon. I was doing 
townhalls in Oregon, and people expressed concern about this to me. I 
am receiving letters from students about this issue and from other 
Oregonians. This is really a kitchen-table issue. This is the family 
sitting around the kitchen table and saying: How are we going to make 
things work? Is our child going to be able to go to college? Are we 
going to be able to afford it? We can contribute a little, and 
hopefully our son or daughter will get some grants, but they will also 
have to borrow some money. If they have a huge debt load and a high 
interest rate, will that be feasible for them or will they have to take 
a year or two off and try to find a job or two in the service economy 
to save money and then go back, and then what?
  That is why student loan rates are so important. It is about the 
opportunity for our sons and daughters to have the course in life in 
which they are able to pursue their dreams and realize their potential. 
That is what this debate is about. That is a pretty big deal--certainly 
a big deal for students in my State of Oregon, for their parents, and 
for our future economy, which needs to have our children in America 
well-trained in order to drive the success of our economy.
  We are facing a Republican filibuster saying: We don't want to talk 
about this issue. That is what a motion to proceed is. My colleagues 
have said: No, we don't want to debate it. I disagree with them.
  Let's hear it through the voices of some of those folks on the front 
line.
  Sermin from Multnomah writes:

       Dear Senator Merkley:
       Today I am writing about student loan interest rates. I do 
     not want to see these rise, even double, when the legislation 
     expires in July.
       Please fight to keep these loans at a low interest rate so 
     average Americans can have a chance at an education, a better 
     life, without crippling debt.

  She continues:

       I was just accepted in the University of Oregon's graduate 
     program in architecture. I have applied for loans as I do not 
     have the money to pay for this education. My husband and I 
     will have to scrape by when I quit my job to go to school.
       Once I graduate and find employment, I am confident in my 
     ability to pay back the loans. But raising interest rates 
     would make it difficult to do so quickly, adding $5,000 in 
     interest to my 5-year payback plan.
       Please stand with middle America, average Americans, and 
     support legislation to extend the low interest rates on 
     student loans.

  Kalie from Polk County writes:

       Senator Merkley,
       I am currently a freshman in college and have taken out a 
     substantial amount of student loans in my own name to make my 
     goal of attaining a college degree attainable.
       Being 18 and having more than $20,000 in debt is scary, 
     especially with the insecurity of today's economy, but I 
     strongly believe that I am making the necessary investment to 
     not only better my own future, but that of the U.S. society 
     as a whole, as well as generations to come.
       As it stands right now, a college education is something 
     that, realistically, not everyone can achieve purely from an 
     economic standpoint, and the legislation to raise interest 
     rates on Federal student loans would only make attending 
     college all the more difficult for some.
       Please do myself, my peers, my future children, and their 
     grandchildren a favor and help keep student loan rates where 
     they are.
       Help to make college more affordable for all people so more 
     of our citizens can realize their dreams of higher education 
     while simultaneously building a better country for future 
     generations.

  Doesn't that sum it up? ``Help to make college more affordable for 
all people so more citizens can realize their dreams while 
simultaneously building a better country.'' I think she got right to 
the heart of it.
  Caroline in Benton County writes:

       I am an oncology nurse, presently working on my Master's 
     degree in nursing. Like many others, I have student debt. If 
     we are to have an educated workforce, we must ensure that the 
     high cost of education doesn't leave students in financial 
     ruin.

  Indeed, the fear of financial ruin from heavy debt burdens and high 
interest rates is a significant factor that is dissuading people from 
pursuing higher education.

  Cynthia from Columbia County writes:

       If we expect to compete in a global marketplace, our 
     children must have affordable access to education.
       I have two kids in college, and the debts we are incurring 
     are already topping $50,000; is it right that only rich 
     people can send their children to college?
       What kind of a country is it where we can spend billions on 
     ``independent security contractors'' in Iraq or Afghanistan, 
     but not on our own children's education?

  She concludes:

       Please support a plan to keep student loan interest rates 
     from doubling this July.

  I want to dwell on the point she made for a moment. We spent $120 
billion in Afghanistan last year on misguided nation building while we 
let nation building at home suffer, both in terms of investment in our 
infrastructure and investment in education. So Cynthia wonders what is 
wrong that we are failing our children when we have billions to spend 
on a misguided war overseas.
  Alana writes:

       I am working to pay off student loans now, which is hard 
     enough. Now my family's trying to send my youngest sister to 
     college and is finding it hard to afford, and we are upper 
     middle class. If we can barely afford an education now, how 
     will anybody be able to do so if the interest rates go up? 
     Please support the plan to stop this. This is a critical 
     investment in the success of our middle class.

  I think these folks from Oregon--Sermin, Kalie, Caroline, Cynthia, 
and Alana--have hit the critical points here. They may not know the 
finer points of Senate procedure, but the fact that a good portion of 
this Chamber is voting to block having a debate and consideration of 
this bill because the bill doesn't start in exactly the form they want 
it passed at the end is pretty difficult to explain.
  I say to my colleagues, if they don't like the bill as it is, why not 
bring your amendment? The bill still cannot pass in the end without a 
supermajority, so why not bring forth your amendment--collaborate with 
others and bring an amendment forward.
  There is a fundamental disagreement in the beginning on how we pay 
for this extension. It would not surprise anyone that I would say let's 
end this war in Afghanistan. Let's pay a third cutting down our 
deficit, a third on infrastructure, and a third on education, including 
keeping student loans affordable. But that is not the plan we are 
debating today. I would be glad to propose that plan if colleagues 
would like to join me to create a supermajority. I would do so after we 
are on the bill. You introduce a bill, you debate and amend it, and you 
have a final vote. You cannot get it done without a supermajority in 
the end.
  The bill as introduced says we are going to close a loophole that is 
a tax entitlement for the very well off. I have heard many colleagues 
across the aisle talk about entitlements for the

[[Page S3027]]

poor. I point out they should be equally concerned about wasteful 
entitlements for the best off--in fact, more concerned. One is a 
fundamental safety net for those who are struggling in an economy where 
there are few jobs. The other is a big bonus for the best off at the 
very top of society. Doesn't it strike my colleagues that the safety 
net is better than the big bonus for the best off? Well, my colleagues 
across the aisle have said: No, no, no, we want the bill to start with 
our payment plan, which is to strip health care prevention from 
children and parents. I guess they weren't raised with the same story I 
was raised with, which is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound 
of cure. It is simply better to inoculate children than to hospitalize 
children with whooping cough. It is better to prevent measles than to 
have children suffer with measles and be damaged by measles. It is 
better to manage diabetes than it is to amputate feet and provide guide 
dogs because folks have gone blind from diabetes. Prevention is better 
than cure. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  I disagree with the plan to strip prevention as a strategy when we 
have options. Let's take that money from nation building in 
Afghanistan, let's take the money from bonus breaks for the best off in 
society, those tax loophole entitlements--let's do that because those 
do not rip a big hole in the safety net for Americans.
  I come from a working family. My father was a millwright and a 
mechanic. They weren't sure how I would be able to go to college. They 
were determined that I would go. They raised me to believe in gaining 
the education necessary to have opportunities in life. But they didn't 
have the money. Despite the fact that I worked a job in college, that 
wasn't enough money. I got substantial grants, and that wasn't enough 
money. I had to take out loans, and I had to pay back those loans. The 
interest rates matter.
  I say to my colleagues: End your filibuster. Come here as Senators, 
present your amendments, debate this bill, and if you don't like the 
bill in the end, vote against it. But do not block this debate on an 
issue of fundamental importance to the success of our children.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, yesterday our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle stopped the Senate from reducing the enormous burden 
of debt that students take on. At a time when college is more expensive 
than ever, this body's inaction will increase each student's borrowing 
costs by about $1,000 for each year of college. And that is no small 
amount for most American families. That is because on July 1 the 
interest rate on new subsidized Stafford loans is expected to double 
from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. We have been talking about this all 
day. The students who qualify for these loans are from middle-class and 
low-income families. If the Senate does not act soon, we will make it 
even harder for them to receive the education and training they need 
for jobs in this 21st century economy.
  High school students and adults looking for new career opportunities 
realize how economically necessary it is to attend college. In my 
generation, if you had a high school degree, you could get a good 
manufacturing job that paid a decent wage and gave you health care and 
a pension. Today we need postsecondary training and strong computer 
math skills to operate the equipment in most manufacturing facilities. 
But it is not just manufacturing, it is many of the fastest growing 
jobs in the United States--it is computer jobs and health care jobs. A 
high school diploma is simply no longer a ticket to a job that pays 
family-supporting wages.
  With an increasing number of jobs requiring some level of 
postsecondary training, we have a significant skills gap. In 
Minnesota--a State the Presiding Officer and I are proud to represent--
70 percent of the jobs in the next several years will require 
postsecondary training. Yet only 40 percent of working-age Minnesotans 
currently have a postsecondary degree. Most of our States have similar 
skill gaps.
  The United States used to lead the world in the percentage of adults 
with a college degree. Today we are No. 16. If our Nation is going to 
prosper in a global economy and continue to grow economically, we need 
to provide pathways for students to attend and pay for college so we 
can close those skill gaps.
  A number of students are lucky enough their parents can provide these 
pathways for them and help pay for college, but most other students 
have to work--part time, maybe even full time. The Presiding Officer 
will appreciate this. I had students from the MNSCU board--their top 
students--who came to visit me. I am sure they visited my colleague 
too. There were about 15 or 20 of them. They represented Minnesota's 
colleges and universities. I asked them: How many of you work at least 
10 hours a week while going to college? All of them raised their hands. 
I asked how many work 20 hours a week. Most of them. I asked how many 
work 30 hours a week while going to school. A lot of them. And how many 
of you work full-time, 40 hours a week, while going to college? A 
number of them.
  That is no way to go to college. When you work 40 hours a week, can 
you take the full course of credits? Maybe not. So then maybe it takes 
you 6 years to graduate. But they are also taking out loans, and often 
huge loans.
  We take for granted these days that students can get a loan, but 50 
years ago that was not true. Students could get scholarships, but that 
was about it. My wife's family did it on Pell grants and scholarships. 
At least until 1957, when the Russians--or the Soviets at the time--
launched Sputnik. Suddenly, the Soviets had nuclear weapons and were 
ahead of us in space and, as a Nation, we were terrified. It woke our 
Nation up to the importance of better educating Americans and getting 
them the skills they needed to compete with the Soviets. That meant 
more Americans would have to go to college.
  I was 6 when Sputnik was launched. My brother was 11--younger than 
the pages. A lot younger. My parents sat us down in our living room, in 
St. Louis Park, MN, and said to us: You boys are going to study math 
and science so that we can beat the Soviets. I thought that was a lot 
of responsibility to put on a 6-year-old, but my brother and I were 
obedient sons and we studied math and science. And wouldn't you know 
it, my parents were right. We beat the Soviets. You are welcome.
  But to get there we had to put in place new Federal programs to help 
average Americans afford college. A year after Sputnik was launched, 
Congress passed the National Defense Education Act, which helped put 
America back on top. This was actually the predecessor to the Perkins 
loan program, and it offered students low-interest loans to go to 
school, with a preference for low-income students.
  This was just the beginning. Soon we gave student loans to medical 
students, created the Federal work-study program, and in 1965 created 
the Guaranteed Student Loan Program. This last one was later renamed 
the Federal Stafford Loan Program--which is what we are talking about 
today--and it made more money available to students to offset rising 
tuition. All this, really, because of Sputnik.
  Today, there are two main types of Federal loans. Subsidized Stafford 
loans are awarded based on need, and unsubsidized Stafford loans are 
available to all students. The overwhelming majority of subsidized 
loans go to students from middle and lower income families. The Federal 
student loan program was created to open the doors of higher education 
to more Americans and provide them with stable, low-cost loans to pay 
for their education. And it originally did so to help Americans compete 
with the Soviet Union.
  Well, we may have beat the Soviet Union, but we now face new economic 
threats from rising powers such as China and India. In our 
interconnected world, in which it is easier than ever to outsource, the 
quality of our workforce matters more than ever before. So with college 
costs increasingly out of the means of many American families, in

[[Page S3028]]

2007 Congress decided to help lower and middle-income students by 
cutting the interest rates on the subsidized Stafford loans.
  The rates declined incrementally over time to a low of 3.4 percent 
this past year. But because this program was so expensive, the 2007 
legislation would sunset on July 1 of this year and interest rates for 
subsidized Stafford loans would double, going back up to 6.8 percent.

  Allowing this to happen doesn't make sense. Interest rates on 
mortgages and Treasurys are far lower than they were in 2007, when no 
one had any inkling of the turn our economy would take. No one could 
have predicted we would be experiencing near-record low interest rates 
and that it would make no sense to double them now to 6.8 percent. Of 
course, the threat we face from global competition has not waned in the 
last 5 years. It is greater than ever.
  So with the July 1 deadline rapidly approaching, the time to act is 
now. Most high school seniors already have had to decide where they are 
going next year, and now they are figuring out how to pay for it. While 
students are wrestling with these tough decisions, it is not time for 
us to get into a procedural fight here in Washington. I am hopeful we 
will vote again this week to move the bill, and this time we will put 
our differences aside and represent all the families in all of our 
States who can use any bit of help we can offer them.
  I am glad to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree 
we should stop the interest rate from going up, and we agree we should 
be fiscally responsible and pay for it. We just disagree on how to pay 
for it. I am proud to have joined a number of my colleagues in putting 
forward the legislation before us with a responsible, commonsense 
offset.
  I think we can all agree that if you are going to collect Social 
Security and Medicare, it is only fair you pay in what you owe, and yet 
some people have found a loophole that allows them to game the system 
using subchapter S corporations to avoid paying some of their Social 
Security and Medicare taxes, some of their FICA.
  Most small business owners are not only honest but incredibly civic 
minded, and so they pay all the payroll taxes that they owe. 
Unfortunately, a small percentage of individuals have found a loophole.
  If you have an S corporation, which is basically a passthrough--which 
means at the end of the year the profits are passed through to you as 
your income. If you have that, whatever profits you make at the end are 
considered income by the IRS. So if you make $300,000 in 1 year, you 
pay income taxes on all of that. Either way, on this you pay income 
taxes on all your income. Here is the loophole: You decide, I know what 
I am going to do. I am going to pay myself an artificially low amount, 
$40,000, and call that my salary. You pay FICA on that amount so you 
can qualify for Social Security later on in your life. Then at the end 
of the year, you get the passthrough of the other $260,000. You still 
pay income tax on all $300,000 because it is all considered income. It 
is not capital gains; it is still income, so you pay income taxes on 
it. But because of an ambiguity in the way the law is written, you can 
avoid paying FICA taxes on the $260,000.
  Again, this money is indistinguishable from the so-called salary you 
took earlier. You could have paid yourself $30,000, so it could be 
$270,000 that you harbor from FICA.
  All of this is active income you are making because of active work 
you have done--it is not capital gains--so you should pay FICA taxes on 
all of it. There is simply no excuse for not paying FICA taxes on all 
of your income--Medicare taxes on all the income and Social Security 
taxes on up to $110,000. That is what anyone making $300,000 would do 
except for this anomaly that was accidentally written into the Tax 
Code. This is exactly the kind of loophole we should be closing.
  I hear all the time that we should be closing loopholes so we can 
keep the marginal rates down. If you can't close this loophole, you 
can't close any loophole. There is no reason this loophole exists. 
There is no good reason for it, there is no purpose to it, and there is 
no reason to keep it. It is an accident that results in people avoiding 
their rightful obligations. Our legislation would close the loophole 
for those individuals making over $250,000.
  Governing is about making choices, and this one seems as clear as day 
to me. Save millions of Americans about $1,000 for each year of 
schooling on their college loans by closing a tax loophole that allows 
the wealthiest among us to avoid paying taxes they should pay and avoid 
gaming the system. It sounds like a no-brainer to me. Instead, a 
minority of Senators is stopping consideration of the bill because they 
object to closing this loophole. They want to repeal a section of the 
Affordable Care Act that supports prevention efforts. They want to 
eliminate the provision that helps stop diabetes and other diseases 
before they occur, the kinds of chronic diseases that are driving our 
health care costs through the roof. This is simply shortsighted and, 
frankly, fiscally irresponsible.
  But I am ready to have that debate. Let's have it here. Let's debate 
the different ways to pay for this legislation. Let's stop this 
filibuster and proceed to consideration of the bill. Let's work 
together to keep America on top and rise to our generation's Sputnik 
challenge.
  Millions of students are depending on us. This bill will provide some 
relief to those students. Millions of businesses are depending on us to 
give them the educated workforce they need. This bill will take a small 
step toward helping them as well. It is time to act. I call on my 
colleagues to work with me to pass this important legislation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I come to the floor to share some 
letters I have received about the importance of freezing the 3.4 
percent Stafford subsidized college loan program.
  It is important because there are some 380,000 students in my home 
State of Ohio alone who are in the Stafford subsidized loan program. 
Many of them will see as they continue their college education--whether 
it is at Sinclair Community College in Dayton or Youngstown State or 
Hiram College--where their costs are continuing to go up. We know the 
average Ohio 4-year college graduate has about $27,000 in student loan 
debt. That is much higher than people had a decade ago or 20 years ago 
or 30 years ago or so when my generation was in college.
  Federally subsidized student loans have been a reliable answer for so 
many in my State. I wish to encourage people to tell their stories. 
Some of my colleagues in the Senate are doing this also, but I urge 
people in Ohio to go to brown.senate.gov/collegeloanstories, and tell 
your story about how important this is.
  The disappointment is that 5 years ago this was bipartisan. President 
Bush signed a bill that many of us here sponsored, in both parties, in 
a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, a good bipartisan support, 
signed by a Republican President to lock in for 5 years this 3.4 
interest rate. If we do nothing, if we can't get our Republican 
colleagues to join us on this and then do the same in the House of 
Representatives to continue this 3.4-percent subsidized Stafford loan, 
it is going to mean that come July, the average college student will 
pay about $1,000 more for each year of college. That is unconscionable 
when college student loans are such a burden.
  It means people who have these loans at this level, when they get out 
of school they are less likely to buy a house, less likely to start a 
family, less likely to start a business.
  If people will bear with me, I wish to read four or five of these 
letters I have gotten on our Web site.
  Nick from Beavercreek, OH:

       I am a college student at Xavier University, Cincinnati, 
     Ohio studying chemistry and biology. I hope one day, through 
     my education in the sciences, that I might be able to make us 
     a stronger nation through innovation and technology.
       The fact of the matter is that I would not be able to 
     pursue an education if it were not for student loans from the 
     Government.
       On behalf of the future of science in this country, which 
     is in trouble already from what I hear, I urge you to reach a 
     bipartisan agreement that would prevent interest rates from 
     doubling.

[[Page S3029]]

       It seems that student debt is unavoidable for the average 
     college student. College already is an expensive investment 
     that shapes our personal finances for the rest of our lives.
       I ask that you, on behalf of those who are already burdened 
     by debt, to find a way to reach across the aisle on this one 
     and stop interest rates from rising.
       I ask that you find a way to lighten our load. We would not 
     forget that if you did that for us. We would greatly 
     appreciate policy that opens up avenues to higher education 
     for ourselves as well as for those future seekers of such an 
     education.

  Justin from Cincinnati, in Southwest Ohio:

       I am the first person in my family to attend college and am 
     on track to completing my BS in experimental psychology. I 
     plan to go straight into a PHD program after I graduate and 
     the prospect of loan rates doubling is absolutely horrifying.
       I work full time to be able to support myself but still 
     have about $15,000 in student loans. By no means does this 
     compare to others who have much more in loans but allowing 
     the interest rate to double is unacceptable and severely 
     limiting to individuals such as myself.
       Lower tuition would boost the number of students attending 
     college making life better for everyone.

  I don't suggest that everybody should go to college. I know everybody 
doesn't want to go to college. But I do know that people often need a 
technical education or a 4-year degree, a 2-year degree at a community 
college or a technical degree or a 4-year degree at a liberal arts 
school, a State university or a private school. The choices in my State 
are huge. We have literally dozens and dozens of small liberal arts 
schools and 4-year and 2-year community colleges and institutions of 
higher learning. Students should be allowed, if they choose, to be able 
to have access to college. Increasingly, it is more difficult for 
students to do that.
  Lorie from West Jefferson, OH:

       I am a full time working mother of three teenage boys as 
     well as a full time college student at Ohio Dominican 
     University.
       I currently have over $40,000 in student loans. I still 
     have one more year to go before completing my program and 
     earning my Bachelor's degree.
       By that time my loan amounts will probably be around $50K.
       About the time I finish college, my oldest son will be 
     beginning college and the student loan process will begin 
     again.
       He will be the first of three children that we will put 
     through college.

  Listen to the definitive. She has decided she is going to make sure 
her kids get a chance to go to school right away. I don't know her, but 
apparently she didn't get a chance to go until she was older and became 
married, with children, and has decided to go back to school and is 
completing her education as her children reach their teens or mid-teens 
or upper teens.

       Low interest rates would help make this a little less of a 
     financial burden for me and my family.
       I do not see how raising interest rates on student loans do 
     anything but cripple those trying to better themselves.

  The last couple I will read. Linda from Centerberg, OH:

       We are grandparents of 5 children. We and our children are 
     middle class constituents who live in a rural area close 
     enough to Columbus to commute.
       Please do not let the interest rate for the Stafford Loan 
     increase in July.
       Our oldest grandchild is preparing to start college in the 
     fall. She is fourth in her class and shows great promise for 
     a good future in her chosen field, but our children are 
     finding that paying for college is really going to stretch 
     their budget.
       Please don't put a further burden on our grandchild by 
     increasing the interest rate of a loan she may need to 
     finance her future.

  So those last two are interesting in that this doesn't just affect 
college students; this affects the parents; it affects the 
grandparents. It is important that they don't want welfare. They just 
want an even shot and a break here. That is so important for this 
grandmother. People understand that this is going to help everybody if 
they get to go on to college.
  The last one I will mention is Carla from Steubenville in eastern 
Ohio, near the Ohio River:

       I am very concerned about the raising of interest rates for 
     student loans.
       I am a mother in a middle class family working to help put 
     my sons through college.
       I don't expect a handout but I have worked hard to acquire 
     my position as a teacher.
       My husband and I have exhausted our savings to pay for most 
     of our sons' expenses--even with the support of subsidized 
     and unsubsidized loans.
       I have put out over $80,000 in my eldest son's college. 
     Please, let's help those that help themselves. If not, then 
     the economy is going to continue to fail.
       The middle class will go bankrupt just trying to pay for 
     their kids college.
       I was taught to work and you shall receive but that is not 
     true anymore. Please help the working poor.

  What I take out of this more than anything is back in the 1940s and 
1950s our government, through legislation that President Roosevelt 
signed in 1944, the GI bill, created a whole generation of prosperity. 
Millions and millions of young men and women coming out of World War II 
were given the opportunity to go to college and build homes and get 
their families started.
  Because government at one time helped these millions and millions of 
students, it lifted the entire country. It lifted the economy. We had a 
much more prosperous economy because all these young men and women went 
to college because they chose to--millions and millions of them--
because of the GI bill. It meant colleges were built. It meant more 
highways were built. It meant more businesses were started after they 
got out of college.
  This subsidized Stafford Loan, as the Presiding Officer this 
afternoon knows, as we all know, helping all of the hundreds of 
thousands--in my State 380,000, in Minnesota more than 200,000 
students--helping those hundreds of thousands of students in our two 
States will help our States become more prosperous.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support our legislation. Lock this in. 
Do it bipartisanly. It was bipartisan 5 years ago, as the highway bill 
used to be bipartisan, as raising the debt limit used to be 
bipartisan. Please return to those days when bipartisanship around here 
was rewarded and was effective.

  I close by asking people to go to my Web site and tell us your story: 
brown.senate.gov/collegeloan stories. Tell us your story. I would like 
to share it with my colleagues because I think putting a human face on 
this for the student, for the parents who are struggling, even for the 
grandparents who care so much about the future, as most of our 
grandparents do, can make a real difference.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we are still here. We have not gotten 
much of a response from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
about our legislation that would help students throughout America pay 
their tuition costs and pay a reasonable amount of interest on their 
loans. I don't know what my colleagues are waiting for. We all know the 
crisis in America. College has become more and more important. To many, 
it is a necessity, and it has become more and more expensive. That 
equation is not only hurting the kids who go to college, it is hurting 
their families and hurting this country.
  When the percentage of people who graduate from college declines vis-
a-vis other nations, that is a very bad sign for America. We can talk 
about the problems of quality in our K 12 schools, and those are 
important issues, but our higher education system is still rating just 
about the best in the world. That is shown by the fact that hundreds of 
thousands from around the world, including places such as China and 
India, apply to our schools, come here and attend. It is a shame we 
send them back even if they want to stay, but that is an immigration 
issue not an education issue.
  Our schools are great, and the big problem with higher education in 
America is not quality--although, of course, it could be made better--
it is affordability. It is not the same as K 12.
  Yet here we are, sitting here, and the other side is in a certain 
sense twiddling their thumbs and making it worse.
  How is America going to stay the greatest economic power in the world 
when fewer and fewer of our bright, capable, hard-working students can 
afford college and when more and more of them decide they are not going 
to go to school or, if they go to school, not to the college of their 
choice for financial reasons?

[[Page S3030]]

  We put a reasonable offer on the table. The proposal is we pay for 
our college tuition act by closing a loophole that people such as Rush 
Limbaugh said should be closed when John Edwards was found to have used 
it in his law firm, when other leading Republicans in 2004 said this is 
one of the greatest abuses of the Tax Code they had ever seen. All of a 
sudden our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they cannot 
vote for it. This was an issue that was talked about as we talked about 
dealing with the budget gap in August or in December--during last year, 
whenever it was. Again, we did not hear objections from the other side: 
Take that one off the table, we can't live with it.
  It seems what is going on is very simple. Our colleagues know that it 
is certainly politically unpopular, but probably it is politically 
wrong to allow interest rates to double. But they can't just say they 
are against it. They tried to say they are against it, but when the 
President went around the country and talked about it they had to back 
off that.
  So in the House they came up with a pay-for which was sort of 
laughable. Everyone knew that would never pass, and no one took their 
position seriously. But we had always hoped that our colleagues in the 
Senate who, frankly, have been much more reasonable in the last little 
while--we passed a highway bill with bipartisan support, we passed a 
postal reform bill with bipartisan support, we passed the Violence 
Against Women Act with bipartisan support, and we thought we could get 
this done with bipartisan support.
  Our goal is not to draw a difference between the parties--that has 
been apparent--but to get this done. We thought when we put our 
proposal on the Senate floor they would accept it. At minimum we 
thought they would at least come back with an offer: Let's debate it. 
Let's try and see if their amendment passes in terms of a different 
pay-for. Let's see if our amendment could get support. Instead, what 
have we found? A filibuster blocking the Senate from even considering 
this reasonable measure.
  I am going to yield the floor because I see my colleagues have 
arrived, the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from New 
Hampshire, who I know have strong beliefs about this issue. We have an 
all-New England cast in the room, with a little help from the Mid-
Atlantic.
  I hope they will reconsider. I hope they will reconsider because it 
is better for the politics of this country to come together once again 
on reasonable issues, as we have done in the past few months. It is 
better, frankly, for their own politics. I am not wishing them ill. But 
most of all, it is better for the future of our country. Please 
reconsider. Let's move forward and debate this bill and let's not let 
the high cost of going to college get unnecessarily higher.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my 
distinguished colleague from New York and his very powerful and 
eloquent words on a subject that concerns all of us, not only in New 
England but across the country. I have heard from countless students in 
Connecticut where we have some of the best educational institutions in 
the country. I know my colleague, Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire, 
has been very much in touch with the people of her State, and 
particularly young people there, striving--as they are in Connecticut--
for more affordable education.
  We are talking about the future of our country. There should be 
nothing contentious, certainly nothing partisan about this issue of 
financing the future of education and particularly student loans. This 
ought to be a common cause, and it ought to be bipartisan. I believe 
eventually it will be because we need to come together on this issue 
for the sake of young people whose lives are very directly and 
immediately impacted by this issue in Connecticut and across the 
country. The impact is not only on their lives but our competitive 
economy, increasingly a global economy in Connecticut that depends more 
and more on exports and more and more on talented and gifted and 
trained, educated skilled people. We need them in Connecticut, and we 
cannot permit the interest rate on Stafford loans to rise to 6.8 
percent from its present rate of 3.4 percent.
  Even now the debt with the present 3.4 percent is crushing to many of 
our students who are struggling to pay their student loans with that 
lower interest rate.
  Stanley Knotowicz--who contacted my office, who is seeking solutions 
in good faith, constructively, and positively--reached out to my office 
because he experiences the same financial hardships facing millions of 
recent graduates across the country. He is paying $70 a week for gas. 
He is providing financial support for his grandmother in her late 
eighties who might lose her home. He is trying to save money to get his 
own apartment. He is one of the many students in Connecticut and across 
the country who have reached out and my office has helped him.
  I have also heard from Brenda Kasimir, a mother who would be crushed 
if she were forced to pay this higher interest rate. Again, my office 
has helped her to meet the ever-increasing challenge of today's economy 
with that student debt that now, overall, is the highest of any debts 
faced by our people as a whole, more than $1 trillion.
  Senators Reid and Harkin want to come to a solution that will keep 
the burden off the backs of students without adding to our national 
debt. It is not a tax increase that they propose, it is simply a 
solution that clarifies tax rules that are already in existence by 
closing a loophole. It is known as the Gingrich-Edwards loophole. I 
wish it were not known by that name. But it lets lawyers, consultants 
and highly paid professionals dodge payroll taxes and push that burden 
off on the middle class.
  Getting rid of this loophole is another step toward an America where 
everybody pays their fair share and everybody plays by the same rules. 
It is the America that we grew up believing in. It is the America that 
we continue to believe in. Some have claimed that it is an America we 
have lost. I don't believe it. We can prove it by closing this 
loophole.
  The provision proposed by Senate Democrats to close this loophole is 
narrowly tailored to affect only wealthy individuals, those making over 
$200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for joint filers. They are 
trying to shield their salaries from taxes, calling themselves small 
businesses. It will not affect the actual small businesses of this 
country, and it will not raise taxes for anybody who already pays what 
they owe in payroll taxes. This loophole should be closed independent 
of the student loan crisis. We ought to close this loophole regardless 
of the challenge we face now in keeping the interest rate at 3.4 
percent.

  Very simply, we are being asked to make a false choice--the choice 
between accessible education and improved public health. It is not a 
choice we have to make. Our long-term economy and, as a result, the 
Federal budget will both benefit if both of these goals are served and 
preserved.
  There is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound 
of cure, and that is supremely epitomized by this situation. Last year 
an analysis in Health Affairs found that for each 10 percent increase 
in local public health spending, the rate of infant deaths and death 
from diabetes, heart disease, and cancer dropped significantly. 
Preventing these deaths and the costly treatment that precedes them 
could save the Federal Government large amounts of money and improve 
the quality of life for countless Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to come together and recognize that preventive 
health care is essential not only to the future of this generation that 
will take advantage of the 3.4-percent interest rate for their Stafford 
loans but other generations as well, generations whose they will be and 
generations who are their parents.
  This program is essential. The 3.4-percent interest rate should not 
be a partisan issue, and we should be closing this loophole regardless 
of the Stafford loan issue. But one way or the other, we should pay for 
it by closing the loophole and making sure students have an affordable 
interest rate for these Stafford loans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page S3031]]

  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator would yield for a unanimous consent?
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I will yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from New Hampshire, I be 
recognized for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from 
Connecticut and from New York and others who have been on the floor 
today to talk about the importance of addressing the--of avoiding, I 
guess I should say, the potential for the student loan interest rates 
to rise at the end of June. The fact is that the U.S. workforce needs 
to have the skills to compete in the global economy, and that means 
making sure college is affordable because so many of the new jobs that 
are being created require higher education.
  The reality is that students today face ever-growing tuition rates, 
and student loans are a critical bridge for them to cover these costs. 
But unless we act, over 7 million students--38,000 in my State of New 
Hampshire alone--who rely on subsidized Stafford student loans will see 
an increase in their student debt when they graduate.
  This is a particular problem for students in New Hampshire because 
our students have the highest average student debt in the Nation. They 
are graduating with just over $31,000 in debt per student. Not only do 
they have the highest average debt, but 74 percent of our college 
students are in debt, and that is the second largest number in the 
country. So we have the highest average debt and the second highest 
number of students graduating with debt.
  Students in New Hampshire and across this country need some relief, 
and doubling the interest rate is exactly the wrong way we should be 
going in terms of policies to promote giving every American the 
opportunity to succeed. We need to encourage our students to go on to 
higher education, to advanced-degree programs, and to professional 
schools. Their future employment and our future economy both depend on 
this.
  Last week I had the opportunity to visit with two of our State 
colleges, Keene State College and Plymouth State University. Everyone I 
spoke with had stories about the escalating cost of college and concern 
for rising student loan interest rates. Over the past 24 hours I have 
heard from hundreds more constituents who are anxious about this.
  Now, to be clear, the legislation we are considering would affect 
current and future students who will receive subsidized Stafford loans 
starting July 1. The last thing anyone needs in this economic climate 
is a reason not to pursue their undergraduate or graduate studies.
  Meghan Jordan of Amherst is a sophomore at the University of New 
Hampshire. She told the Union Leader newspaper that student loan debt 
has become a constant concern for her. Meghan says that her parents 
would do just about anything to pay for her college education in full, 
but with two brothers also in college the finances are simply not 
available. Meghan views the prospect of interest rates doubling as an 
attack on college students trying to make a better future for 
themselves. Sadly, she said it feels like it is a punishment for trying 
to obtain a college degree.
  When I was at Keene State College in Keene last week, I met Keith 
Couch, a parent who has a daughter at Keene and a son at Boston 
College. Between his two kids, his annual tuition bill comes to 
$90,000. No wonder he is having trouble figuring out from where the 
money is going to come. He spends hours trying to figure out how his 
family will make college payments each month. He said loans help bridge 
that gap.
  One constituent, Erin, posted on my Facebook wall that her husband 
recently completed medical assistant courses at Hesser College in 
Manchester. He is due to start paying his student loans next month, but 
he hasn't been able to find a job in his chosen field. Erin said that 
family finances are tight and if interest rates were to double on the 
loans they have, there is no way they would be able to pay them back.
  The stories I have heard in New Hampshire are similar to the stories 
Senator Blumenthal told about Connecticut and what Senator Schumer has 
had to say about New York and what we are hearing from students and 
families across the country. Higher education is essential for economic 
opportunity and personal growth. It is equally essential to the 
prosperity of our country, and, most importantly, the prospect of 
higher debt levels affects whether people choose to enter college to 
begin with.
  When I was in Plymouth last week at Plymouth State University, a 
student stood up and said: I want to teach history. Tell me why I 
shouldn't just drop out of college and be a mechanic. I said: Well, I 
like teachers myself, and we need more of them. But in this rapidly 
changing, highly competitive global economy, we should be doing 
everything we can to make sure college is more accessible to Americans 
so we don't have students across this country saying: Why shouldn't I 
drop out if no one supports my getting a college education?
  It is critical for all of us, and, unfortunately, high debt burdens 
have serious consequences for individuals, for families, and for the 
economy. Student loan debt affects where graduates live, the kinds of 
careers they can pursue, whether they can start a new business, when 
they can start a new family, when they can purchase a new home, and 
when they can start to save for retirement.
  Our students deserve better. We need to get rid of any obstacles that 
are keeping our students from getting the education they need to 
succeed. We should not put more obstacles in their way. We need to come 
together, Democrats and Republicans, to stop this increase in student 
loan interest rates and to do what is in the best interest of our 
families and our young people who need that college education.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today to support the 
Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike of 2012. I cosponsored this 
bill because it extends the current interest rate of 3.4% for 
subsidized Stafford Loans for the next school year. This interest rate 
reflects a record low for interest rates on Federal student loans, and 
these loans can only go to students and families that demonstrate a 
need for them; nearly 50% of the students that take advantage of 
subsidized Stafford loans come from families with an annual income of 
less than $50,000. Subsidized Stafford loans help more than 7 million 
students attend an institution of higher education without worrying 
that the interest on their loans will begin accruing while they are in 
school. It helps more than 103,000 students in Maryland. Middle class 
families are feeling stretched and stressed and if we fail to act, 
students could be facing an additional $1,000 in debt over the life of 
their loans.
  It is important to note that we will not expand our Federal deficit, 
and we will help families not expand the family deficit, by keeping the 
interest rate at 3.4 percent. Senator Reid's legislation offsets the 
cost of this legislation by closing a tax loophole enjoyed by 
individuals seeking to avoid paying payroll taxes on their income. This 
would only affect those who make more than $250,000 a year and simply 
requires people who make any income from a professional service 
business such as lobbying to pay taxes if more than 75 percent of the 
income from that business comes from three or fewer shareholders.
  I adamantly oppose the alternative proposal from House and Senate 
Republicans that would repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund 
authorized by the Affordable Care Act. In the last year alone, that 
prevention fund has funded activities in my home state of Maryland to 
promote tobacco prevention, substance abuse prevention, mental health 
services, and community programs to promote healthy living. The fund is 
also used to invest in childhood immunizations to decrease the risk of 
disease among children. In the future, the President plans to use this 
fund to support breast cancer screenings for more than 300,000 women 
and cervical cancer screenings for more than 280,000 women. Repealing 
the prevention fund would not only

[[Page S3032]]

strike an unnecessary blow to prevention activities aimed to improve 
the lives of women and children, it would also promote increased health 
care costs by eliminating strategic investments meant to prevent or 
mitigate chronic illnesses that can be expensive to treat.
  Students will bless us if we are successful in keeping their student 
loan interest rates as low as possible. Getting a college education is 
the core of the American dream and I am going to be sure that every 
student has access to that dream and make sure that when they graduate 
their first mortgage isn't their student debt. This legislation pending 
before us today should be passed in a swift, expeditious, uncluttered 
way. This bill is absolutely a great bill for students and it is a 
great bill for America. It gives our students access to the American 
dream. It gives our young people access to the freedom to achieve, to 
be able to follow their talents, and to be able to achieve higher 
education in whatever field they will be able to serve this country.
  I urge the swift passage of Senator Reid's legislation to maintain 
the current interest rate for subsidized Stafford loans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                                  EPA

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I will be introducing a bill 
in a minute called S. 3053, but as a predicate to that, let me talk 
again about my ongoing investigation of the overreach of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Certainly the Washington Post is right-on with their editorial. On 
May 3, the Washington Post editorial board penned an editorial entitled 
``The EPA is earning a reputation for abuse.'' In this editorial, they 
discussed how former region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz's 
``philosophy of enforcement'' has severely hurt the EPA.
  To refresh your memory, it was a couple of weeks ago at this very 
podium that I read the quotes I am about to quote again today. While 
the Washington Post doesn't agree with me all the time, I was pleased 
to read that they saw that the ``crucify'' policy Mr. Armendariz 
purported in his visit to Dish, TX, clearly showed that he ``preferred 
to extract harsh punishments on an arbitrary number of firms to scare 
others into cooperating.'' Further, the Washington Post editorial board 
saw this attitude as both unjust and threatening to investors in energy 
projects.
  While Armendariz has resigned--he is gone now--his statements have 
undermined the legitimacy of the EPA's regulatory authorities. We know 
that the policy of extracting harsh punishment on arbitrary individuals 
in order to scare others into cooperation was not just an inflated 
rhetoric. Mr. Armendariz followed through on his philosophy when he had 
the EPA region 6 pursue a trumped-up emergency action against the 
natural gas company Range Resources in Texas. The EPA is not using its 
powers fairly and is showing its enforcement is arbitrary, unreliable, 
capricious, and unduly severe.
  But the Post's editorial board didn't see Armendariz as an isolated 
incident. They also called out EPA's actions in another recent high-
profile misuse of power that has hurt the Agency's credibility.
  The EPA insisted that an Idaho couple, the Sacketts, stop 
construction on a home because that violated the Clean Water Act. On 
March 21 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously--this was not a split 
decision; it was unanimous, 9 to 0--that the EPA had exceeded its 
authority in pursuing the Sacketts and has ensured that they and other 
people who find themselves in similar situations can overcome the EPA's 
assertion of whether or not their property contains jurisdictional 
wetlands, without submitting to the permit process. A mere 2 days 
later, the EPA was again called out for overreaching its authority on 
water issues. Then on March 23 the U.S. district court ruled that the 
EPA overreached in revoking a permit to Arch Coal after the Army Corps 
of Engineers had already granted it. In quite a blow to the Agency, the 
judge said EPA's claim--and I am now quoting what the judge said in his 
order--``that section 404(c) grants it plenary authority to 
unilaterally modify or revoke a permit that has been duly issued by the 
Corps'' is a ``stunning power for an agency to aggregate to itself when 
there is absolutely no mention of it in the statute.'' That is what the 
court said.
  Yet, in the midst of scathing rebukes from the press and the courts, 
the EPA is still acting as if everything is the same as it was before 
these cases happened, and they are actively pursuing more regulatory 
power by attempting to vastly increase the scope of the Clean Water 
Act's reach. In fact, when discussing the results of the Sackett case 
at an American Law Institute-American Bar Association event on May 3 of 
this year, Mark Pollins, Director of EPA's Water Enforcement Division, 
said, ``Internally it is the same old, same old.''
  I plan to send a letter to Administrator Jackson addressing Mr. 
Pollins' comments and trying to find out how an EPA official, in the 
face of a 9-to-0 Supreme Court decision, could say that the Agency is 
not going to do anything different. And if the EPA is able to finalize 
its new Clean Air Act jurisdictional guidance, it will have given 
itself a whole new set of excuses for pushing the boundaries of the 
Clean Water Act as far as possible. This continued overreach is why we 
now have bicameral, bipartisan legislation introduced to stop this 
current guidance overreach.

  Let's take a moment and go back in time to where this all started. We 
might remember a couple years ago Senator Feingold from Wisconsin and 
Congressman Oberstar over in the House introduced the Clean Water 
Restoration Act. The Clean Water Restoration Act removed the word 
``navigable.'' This act gave the Federal Government, through the EPA, 
the jurisdiction over the navigable water. That is what the law was. 
But they wanted to take out the word ``navigable'' and, therefore, the 
EPA would have jurisdiction over all land in the United States. It is 
very simple. It was so unfair that not only did we defeat the Clean 
Water Restoration Act but the people defeated Senator Feingold in 
Wisconsin and Congressman Oberstar, after they had been in Congress for 
a long time. Obviously, this is something that is not popular. It is an 
overreach and everyone understands it.
  Normally, when the Obama administration can't achieve what they want 
to achieve through legislation, they do it through regulations. We see 
this in cap and trade right now. We saw the President try to get 
legislation on cap and trade which amounted to a $300 billion to $400 
billion tax increase on the American people and it wouldn't have done 
any good or helped anyone. Yet it would have been the largest tax 
increase in history. I go back and compare it with what they were 
attempting to do with the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. That is 
where they raised the marginal rates, the capital gains tax, the death 
tax--this massive tax increase--a $32 billion tax increase. This will 
be 10 times greater than that. Now they are trying to do what they 
couldn't do with legislation through regulation. But that is because in 
order to undertake a Clean Water Act rulemaking, EPA would have to 
follow a transparent process and engage in a public comment period as 
required by the Administrative Procedures Act.
  For that reason, they didn't pursue that through regulations. Given 
how unpopular their proposal has been, going through with the 
rulemaking would make it much more difficult to obtain the expanded 
Federal control they are clearly trying to pursue. By changing agency 
practice in this formal and nonregulatory way, they virtually ensure 
that they will be able to formalize this agenda easily through future 
rulemaking. So what they couldn't achieve through legislation or, in 
this case, through the proper rulemaking process, they are trying to do 
through guidance.
  What is even more frustrating than the EPA's continued overreach is 
that this new guidance would provide no improvement to water and would 
likely hinder real progress on cleaning water. The guidance's broad 
reach and legalistic language would inevitably shift the balance of 
regulatory authority further away from States, which are better 
equipped to protect waters within their borders. Giving the Federal 
Government control over nearly all water features will not lead to 
cleaner water. It will, however, lead to tremendous uncertainty, 
tremendous confusion, and economic pain for farmers,

[[Page S3033]]

energy developers, small businesses, and State governments by saddling 
them with more layers of expensive, onerous, and unnecessary Federal 
regulations. It is yet another Obama administration policy that will be 
all pain for virtually no environmental gain.
  Congress has been explicitly clear with EPA that this new guidance is 
unacceptable. Last July I wrote a letter, along with Senator Roberts, 
the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and 39 of our 
colleagues to Administrator Jackson, where we raised our concerns that 
this document went far beyond mere guidance. EPA and the Corps of 
Engineers greatly expanded what can be considered jurisdictional waters 
through a slew of new and expanded definitions and through the changes 
to the applications and jurisdictional tests.
  Administrator Jackson has said this guidance will increase the Clean 
Water Act's scope. In the economic analysis that accompanied the 
guidance, it stated that as few as 2 percent and as many as 17 percent 
of the nonjurisdictional determinations under current guidance would be 
considered jurisdictional using the expanded test under the new 
guidance. However, this analysis was only for the Army Corps making 
dredge-and-fill permit decisions when compared to current practice. The 
guidance will apply to the entire Clean Water Act, including the 
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits, the Oil 
Pollution Act and Spill Prevention Control, and Countermeasure plans, 
water quality standards, and even State water quality certifications. 
Because most States have delegated authority under the Clean Water Act, 
this change in guidance will also result in a change in the 
responsibilities of States in executing their responsibilities under 
the Clean Water Act and a change in how individual citizens are 
governed by law.
  So what we are talking about is what they have been unable to do with 
legislation they were going to be doing with regulation. But in this 
case, what they couldn't do with regulation because it would be too 
transparent they are trying to do through guidance.
  The finalized guidance document is currently at OMB for formal 
interagency review before it is finalized. We don't know what changes 
have been made, but based on a draft that was leaked to the press, it 
doesn't appear that the document is substantially different from the 
proposed guidance document they put out for public comment last May. 
This is the last step before this expansive document starts being used 
throughout the country, and that is why I hope all my colleagues in the 
Senate on both sides of the aisle will join me in trying to stop it.
  Working with Senator Barrasso, Senator Heller, Senator Sessions, and 
others, we introduced S. 2245. We call it the Preserve the Waters of 
the United States Act. It is a bill that stops the EPA from finalizing 
the guidance and from using the guidance to make decisions about the 
scope of the Clean Water Act or to turn it into a rule. The House has 
also acted with chairmen and ranking members of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure and Agriculture Committees introducing the bipartisan 
H.R. 4965. I applaud Mr. Mica and Mr. Rahall in this bipartisan effort, 
as well as Mr. Lucas and Mr. Peterson and Mr. Gibbs for their actions. 
These bills do not change or roll back any current protections in the 
Clean Water Act; they simply stop the EPA and the Corps of Engineers 
from moving forward and making these unprecedented regulatory changes 
through a guidance document.
  The EPA needs to withdraw this guidance document immediately. If it 
wishes to make changes to the Clean Water Act, it should go through a 
complete and proper rulemaking process under the Administrative 
Procedures Act. That is why it is there, so people in America will know 
the cost of what these regulations mean to them and what they do and do 
not do. Why do it under the veil of guidance when they should be doing 
it out in the open? That is what we want. That is all we are asking 
for.
  I mentioned I am introducing a bill today.
  (The remarks of Senator Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3053 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, yesterday Republican Senators voted to 
block the bill to prevent the doubling of the Federal student loan 
interest rate on July 1. As long as they continue their filibuster, 
there is no clear way forward to prevent that devastating rate hike 
less than 2 months from now.
  If that happens, more than 7.4 million American students will be 
required to pay an average of $1,000 more per year of school. This is 
especially important to my State of Iowa--and it is important to all 
States--where nearly 72 percent of Iowa's college graduates have 
student loan debt, the fourth highest percentage in the Nation. Those 
borrowers are carrying an average of $30,000 in student loan debt, 
which is the third highest in the Nation.
  In floor debates this week, Republicans claimed that they, too, want 
to prevent the rate hike. I welcome their support. But if they want to 
join with us in preventing the rate hike, why in the world won't they 
let us proceed to the bill? That will give us all the opportunity to 
debate the bill and offer amendments.
  I call on my Republican friends, if they want to keep the interest 
rate hike from doubling on students, to call off the filibuster and 
let's move ahead with the bill. I am not the only one who wants to end 
this obstruction by our friends on the Republican side. I have heard 
from constituents in Iowa who are frustrated at the Senate's failure to 
act. This is a kitchen-table issue for middle-class Americans, families 
all across the country.
  I have heard reports that over 500,000 signatures from students 
around the country have been delivered to the Hill to show their 
support for keeping the rate at 3.4 percent. I know many Senators have 
come to the floor to share stories from their constituents about how 
the interest rate hike would affect them. I will share a story I 
received from an Iowa student.

       Dear Congressman, [or Senator, as the case may be] I am 
     writing you on behalf of myself, current college students, 
     and future college students everywhere. I recently re-
     enrolled in college to further my education. This decision 
     came after much time and deep thought. The problem wasn't 
     that I didn't want to attend school, it was whether or not I 
     could afford to attend school.
       I live on my own, hold a full time job that I previously 
     attended a technical school to obtain. This job supports me 
     fully, and as much as I love parts of my job, I know that my 
     decision to re-enroll in school to further my education was 
     the right decision for me.
       . . . In the middle of all of this preparation, I came 
     across an article in the USA Today that said the Federal 
     Government might raise student loan interest rates. Not just 
     raise, but double them, unless Congress intervenes.
       I could not believe what I was reading, and feel so 
     passionate about the subject that I had to write a letter to 
     you. I am already struggling on a daily basis to support 
     myself. I live paycheck to paycheck and often have to rely on 
     the savings account I worked so hard to save before 
     graduating high school, along with consistent help from my 
     parents and grandparents. I wish to be independent from this 
     help even though I am thankful that it is there.
       This increase in interest rates on loans . . . was not only 
     disappointing, it was infuriating to me. This will have an 
     effect for many years beyond what it should and not only for 
     me.
       I live in Stanwood, IA, a place that not many people have 
     heard of, and I commute the 35 miles to Cedar Rapids every 
     day for my job. . . .
       So when I saw that these loans that I am relying on to 
     support me and fund my education were going to double, I was 
     heartbroken and I wonder what is wrong with my country? I am 
     very proud to be an American, and more so an Iowan. . . .
       I believe that the one thing the USA has going for it: 
     supporting our future, but that is quickly fading in front of 
     my eyes. I hope that you read this and feel every ounce of 
     disappointment in our great country as I do, and do 
     everything in your power to not let the interest rate on 
     student loans increase on July 1.
       I hope you can put faith in the American students who are 
     relying on these loans to

[[Page S3034]]

     educate themselves, and together get our country back on the 
     right track, not headed down the wrong one. Thank you so much 
     for your time, and I hope to hear great things from my 
     representatives soon.
       Sincerely, a proud fellow Iowan.

  This is just one of the many stories I have received from my 
constituents, telling me how detrimental it would be if the rate were 
to double on July 1.
  This increase is a looming reality for many students and families if 
this Senate continues to do what it is doing--and that is to do nothing 
to bring the bill up and having Republicans filibuster it, and not even 
letting us proceed on it.
  For the past 3 days, we have been hearing from Republicans that they 
want to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent, but they don't like how 
we are paying for it in our bill. I have said many times that if they 
don't like that--and our leader came out here, as many have, saying, 
look, if my Republican friends don't like how we pay for it, let us get 
on with the bill and they can offer their offset or pay-for. We can 
vote on it and they can vote on ours. But that is not acceptable to the 
Republicans. They don't even want the bill to go forward.
  We have been hearing from Republicans that our offset, which is 
closing a loophole in the Tax Code that affects subchapter S 
corporations--and I might add it only affects a very small sliver of 
subchapter S corporations, very tightly drawn; they can't have more 
than three shareholders. How about that. And you have to have more than 
$250,000 in income, and it pertains only to those subchapter S 
corporations that provide certain kinds of professional services. In 
other words, it doesn't pertain to real estate, or manufacturing, or 
anything like that. It only has to do with certain professional 
services, such as lawyers and accountants, people such as that.
  Well, the Republicans say that if we do this--close that loophole--it 
will hurt the ``job creators.'' How many times have I heard that, job 
creators--that we are going to hurt small businesses. The other 
side would have you believe that we are doing this for political gain, 
that somehow we Democrats are doing this for political gain. Well, if 
that were the truth, why would we pick an offset, a pay-for, to fix a 
problem that conservatives have railed against in the past? Yes, the 
problem that we are trying to fix in subchapter S corporations is a 
problem that conservative Republicans have railed against in the past. 
I want to refresh my colleagues' memories and set the record straight 
on this issue of S corporations, the offset we have.

  For starters, in 2004, the Wall Street Journal editorial page said 
this on July 13, 2004:

       Conservative Support for Closing the S Corp Tax Loophole.
       Senator Edwards talks about the need to provide health care 
     for all, but that didn't stop him from using a clever tax 
     dodge [these are the words of the Wall Street Journal, not 
     mine] to avoid paying $591,000 into the Medicare system. 
     While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed 
     what is known as a ``subchapter S'' corporation, with himself 
     as the sole shareholder. Instead of taking his $26.9 million 
     in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid 
     himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as 
     corporate dividends.
       Since salary is subject to 2.9 percent Medicare tax, but 
     dividends aren't, that meant he shielded 90 percent of his 
     income. That's not necessarily illegal, but dodging such a 
     large chunk of employment tax skates perilously close to the 
     line . . .
       CPA Magazine lists it as number 11 of its 15 best 
     underutilized tax loopholes.

  I ask, is the Wall Street Journal in favor of--what did they say?--
hurting job creators? Are they in favor of that? Is the Wall Street 
Journal in favor of ``raising taxes on the very businesses we are 
counting on to hire these young people,'' as the minority leader said 
on Monday? I repeat, we limit it to only three shareholders. They are 
going to count on them to hire these young people, he said. What is the 
minority leader talking about? That same year, in 2004, the late 
conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote:

       It is one of the last loopholes left in the Internal 
     Revenue Code, and it is a big one.

  Here is the whole statement:

       How can John Edwards explain setting up a dummy 
     corporation--subchapter S--to avoid paying an estimated 
     $290,000 in Medicare taxes in the 2 years before he ran for 
     the Senate? This is a classic subchapter S corporation 
     devised to shelter income, mainly for professionals, such as 
     lawyers (and also syndicated columnists, but not me). It is 
     one of the last loopholes left in the Internal Revenue Code, 
     and it is a big one.

  That is Robert Novak. Has anyone ever questioned his conservative 
credentials?
  Sean Hannity said this:

       Hey, John Edwards is worth, what, $30 million to $40 
     million, set up a sub-S corporation to keep him from paying 
     Medicare taxes on 90 percent of his income, and then he 
     lectures the rest of us how Medicare is going broke.

  Finally, Rush Limbaugh himself said this:

       . . . and he [Senator Edwards] has also compounded that by 
     structuring his own personal finances to avoid paying 
     Medicare taxes on 90 percent of the nearly $27 million he 
     earned over four years.

  I ask my Republican colleagues, are Robert Novak, Sean Hannity, Rush 
Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal all in support of raising taxes? 
Are they all in support of killing job creators? These are their 
statements. That is the record.
  For the last several years, conservative Republicans have been going 
after this loophole, until they obviously found a Democrat who used it, 
John Edwards. Lots of people use it, a lot of lawyers and accountants 
and doctors. A lot of different kinds of professionals have used this 
loophole to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
  Here is another classic case where the Republicans say we are using 
this for political gain. Wait a minute. They are the ones who have been 
going after this loophole for years. We said: Hey, we finally have 
something on which we can agree. The Wall Street Journal and all these 
other people are saying we have to close this loophole. We have the 
opportunity to do so, and in doing so raise the money both to help 
Medicare and Social Security and to keep the interest rates on student 
loans at 3.4 percent. Yet the Republicans will not even allow us to 
bring it to the floor.

  So who is playing politics, I ask? Who is playing politics?
  Well, as I have said before, and I will say again, we have come here 
with a serious offset--one, as I said, that has been supported--at 
least closing this loophole has been supported--by conservative 
Republicans in the past. If anything, it is worse today than it was in 
2004. More and more people are finding out about how they do this. They 
form this little subchapter S corporation and avoid paying their taxes. 
It is time to close that.
  We came up with a serious offset we thought would be acceptable on 
both sides because of the history. We are ready to do this now--ease 
the concern of so many students and families across the country. The 
Republicans came and wanted to pay for it by eliminating the Prevention 
and Public Health Fund. They want to eliminate the one thing that is 
going to prevent obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes 
in the future and save us a lot of money. They want to end that and 
take that money and put it into keeping the interest rates low. They 
are pitting the low interest rates for students against the health care 
of children--immunizations for kids--which is what we use this 
prevention fund for. And for diabetes prevention. That is what we use 
the fund for. They want to take that away, pitting students against the 
health of our country. That is not a serious offer. That is not a 
serious offer by the Republicans.
  That alternative is going nowhere. Besides, the President has said he 
would veto that. So I ask my colleagues on the other side to quit 
playing politics. Quit playing politics with this. Let's bring it up 
for a vote.
  Maybe they should listen to the Wall Street Journal, and the now 
deceased Novak and Fox News and even Rush Limbaugh and Hannity. Let's 
close this loophole once and for all and do something good with it. 
Let's do something good with it. Keep the interest rates low for our 
students in this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the day I flipped on the TV that we 
have in

[[Page S3035]]

our offices and looked at it as often as I could. I was very impressed 
with my colleagues who came and talked about why it is so important 
that we not have an increase in the interest rate for student loans. I 
have been very happy with my Democratic colleagues who have come here 
and made such a profound case. But I listened also to what the 
Republicans had to say, and it is beyond my comprehension how they can 
come to the floor with a straight face and say what they have said. I 
have listened as my Republican colleagues have come to the Senate floor 
to blame Democrats for stalling legislation to keep college affordable 
for 7 million people throughout our great country. The claim is pretty 
rich considering that Republicans voted unanimously yesterday to 
filibuster this legislation. What is a filibuster? It is stopping us 
from going to the legislation.
  Our bill would prevent 7 million students from paying $1,000 more on 
their loans. With college already unaffordable for far too many young 
people, Democrats believe we should be doing all we can to provide 
access to higher education. That is what these student loans are all 
about.
  Republicans have repeatedly claimed they support efforts to support 
legislation to keep loans from doubling this summer, but they sure have 
a funny way of showing it with this endless filibuster. Today, 
Republicans have said that Democrats should negotiate a way out of this 
stalemate--again, a very strange reasoning. It is hard to negotiate 
without a partner.
  Every Tuesday after we do our weekly caucus meetings, I go to what we 
call the Ohio Clock. One of the reporters said: Your Republican 
colleague Senator McConnell said you should negotiate on this issue 
with Speaker Boehner.
  Now, how do you like that one, that I, the leader in the Senate, 
should go to the Republican House and start negotiating with them? That 
is a strange, strange way of doing business.
  The Republicans claim their only objection to our legislation is how 
it is paid for--by closing a tax loophole that allows wealthy Americans 
to dodge taxes they already owe. That is what we feel should happen. We 
don't believe it is a tax increase--just that people should pay what 
they are supposed to pay. They now have a way of avoiding taxes. Rich 
accountants and lawyers avoid it by claiming they are going to pay 
dividends and not ordinary income. It is not fair to everyone else.
  So if the Republicans object to this, fine. Democrats are willing to 
consider alternative offsets. In fact, we are even willing to vote on 
the House Republicans' own proposed offset. Now, that is a doozy, the 
offset from the Republicans coming from the House, which takes away 
money for preventive care for virtually everybody. The leading causes 
of death in America are diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. They want 
to take away preventive programs to stop heart disease. And, as we 
know, there are programs now--mammograms, for example--that stop people 
from having to get too far behind with the dread of breast cancer. That 
is their offset. We strongly oppose that alternative, but we are 
willing to vote on it. We are not running from it. And once their 
proposal to slash programs that save money and lives fails on a floor 
vote--and it will fail--we Democrats are still willing to consider 
other options to pay for this legislation. My Republican colleagues on 
the other hand have refused to consider alternative ways to pay for a 
bill they claim they support.
  So I say to my Republican colleagues, let us bring this bill to the 
floor. If Republicans are so interested in negotiating a solution, they 
should be willing to take that first step. Once the bill is on the 
floor, we can debate it, we can amend it with an offset on which both 
sides can agree. But until Republicans end their obstructionist 
filibuster, there is no path forward.
  So for my Republican colleagues to come down here and say ``we 
support this legislation,'' I repeat, what a strange way of supporting 
this legislation.

                          ____________________