[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 76 (Thursday, May 24, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3609-S3611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOP THE STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATE HIKE ACT OF 2012
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to S. 2343, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2343) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to extend the reduced interest rate for Federal Direct
Stafford Loans, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 10
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees.
The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we are in a rather ridiculous staring
contest, waiting for our Democratic friends to offer a proposal that
can actually pass when we already have one right in front of us. We
have wasted actually 2 weeks on this student loan issue for no good
reason. Neither I nor the ranking member has heard a word from the
Democrats on how they propose to resolve the issue and actually prevent
the interest rate from rising.
As we learned earlier this week, the President doesn't seem to even
talk to his committee chairmen anymore. All of this suggests that the
White House doesn't want to solve the problem; that it would rather
allow these rates to double in a few weeks so he can run around all
summer pointing the finger at those Republicans in the Senate.
I would still like to believe that is not the case. We had a chance
to talk to the President about this and other issues last week down at
the White House. I am convinced he would like to get a solution. Yet
the fact is, all he would have to do is simply pick up the phone and
tell the Democratic leadership that we would like to get this done, and
I am pretty confident we could work it out. Unfortunately, we cannot
just wait around hoping the President is going to pick up the phone.
College students cannot wait either. They want us to resolve the issue
now, and I know we can.
To move the ball forward, I would say to my colleague, the majority
leader, if he agrees with me--Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi just did
a good job with coming up with a bipartisan solution to the FDA bill. I
am confident they could do the same thing on the student loan issue.
They are the chairman and the ranking member of the committee that
oversees student loan legislation. I have a lot of confidence in their
ability to do it.
I am going to proffer a consent agreement that I think would allow us
to go forward. My colleague from Tennessee will take the balance of our
time after I have concluded.
I ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of the two
scheduled votes on the student loan bill, which we are about to have,
the next order of business be a Harkin-Enzi bill dealing with the issue
of the current student loan rate; provided further that no motion to
proceed to other items be in order unless agreed to by both leaders.
The purpose of this consent agreement I have just proffered is to
allow Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi to negotiate on this important
issue, the increase in the student loan rates, and to keep the Senate
focused on how to resolve this issue in a timely way before the rate
goes up. The bill they would negotiate would be the next order of
business, but it would also provide that both leaders could agree to
allow the Senate to work on other measures if necessary as those
student loan discussions continue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I am going to use the leader time, not the 5 minutes we
were allocated.
Madam President, we have all heard of reverse engineering. What we
just heard is reverse reasoning. This is one of the most interesting
things I have heard--that makes no sense. We have been trying to get on
this bill for weeks. The Republicans have refused to allow us to get on
the bill.
The student loan issue is important. We should have already completed
this--had we been allowed to get on the bill--but we were not allowed
to get on the bill. We were faced with one of our many filibusters--
scores of them. Not one, two, three or four, scores of them. This is
another example of them stopping us from legislating on a bill. Now to
come here and say we could have been doing something--my friend knows
the rules of this Senate as well as I do. He knows his suggestion is
absurd.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Amendment No. 2153
Mr. McCONNELL. On behalf of Senator Alexander I call up amendment No.
2153.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr.
Alexander, for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Cornyn, Mr.
Heller, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Roberts,
Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Rubio, and Ms. Ayotte, proposes an
amendment numbered 2153.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Interest Rate Reduction
Act''.
SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE EXTENSION.
Subparagraph (D) of section 455(b)(7) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)(7)(D)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``2012'' and inserting ``2013''; and
(2) in clause (v), by striking ``2012'' and inserting
``2013''.
SEC. 3. REPEALING PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 4002 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 300u 11) is repealed.
(b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made
available by such section 4002, the unobligated balance is
rescinded.
SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, on July 1, 7 million students getting
new loans to go to college, the rate for interest will go from 3.4 to
6.8. This is an amendment to get a result. This is the House-passed
bill. President Obama
[[Page S3610]]
says he wants to freeze the rate for a year. Governor Romney says he
wants to freeze the rate for a year. The House of Representatives has
voted to freeze the rate for a year. A vote yes on the House-passed
bill will permit us to send it to them and quickly send it to the
President, he will sign it, and we solve the problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, while I appreciate the confidence the
Republican leader has in the ability of Mr. Enzi and me to get things
done, frankly, we are confronted now with two votes. Which way do we
want to go? What they are proposing is that we totally end, totally
eliminate all of the prevention and wellness money that we have out
there in the wellness fund.
What would this do? We have vaccinations for children, immunizations,
smoking cessation programs, colorectal screenings, diabetes prevention,
breast cancer screening, obesity prevention--all funded by this
Prevention and Wellness Fund. Not one of those would be funded from
that fund if that amendment passes.
The choice is very clear on the two amendments we have coming up. We
can either vote to close a tax loophole that allows wealthy tax dodgers
not to pay their fair share of taxes--we can close that loophole and
keep the interest rates at 3.4 percent--or, as the Republicans want to
do, totally eliminate the Wellness and Prevention Fund and end the
money that we are putting into diabetes prevention and breast cancer
and colorectal screening and all the things I mentioned.
I do not think the choice could be more clear to the American people
about the direction we ought to go. Close the tax loophole. Keep the
prevention fund in there. Keep our people healthy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we have 2 minutes left. I will use one
of them.
Our friends on the other side have their usual solution to almost any
problem: Let's put some more taxes on small business men and women in
America during a time of the greatest recession we have had.
We have a better idea for how to pay for this bill. We will take some
of the savings the Congressional Budget Office said they found when
they took over the student health program in the health care bill--
instead of giving the students the benefit of those savings, they spent
it on government. They spent $8.3 billion on the health care bill. We
will give back to the students enough money to pay for this freezing of
the rate.
We will not tax the small businesspeople. We will have a little left
over, and we will reduce the debt. Then we can send our bill to the
House, they will pass it like that, send it to the President, and the
problem is solved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, as Senator Harkin pointed out, the
Republican proposal goes right to the heart of prevention, and that
will have two effects. It will deny critical services to families all
across this country, and it will do something else--it will deny us the
chance to bend that proverbial cost curve. If we do not control those
costs, we will be in a fiscal disaster. The proposal they are making
does not make sense. We have proposed to close a tax loophole that has
been described by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration
as a multibillion-dollar employment tax shelter.
We have restricted it to the people who are receiving over $200,000 a
year. This is not small business men and women. This is not the corner
hardware store. These are lobbyists. These are lawyers who have
craftily used subchapter S corporations to avoid paying payroll taxes.
This loophole has been criticized on the editorial pages of the Wall
Street Journal. This is no ``just raise taxes.'' This is trying to find
a loophole which has been criticized by the right as well as the left
to pay for and ensure that we do not double the interest rate on
students. I cannot think of a clearer choice: Reject the Republican
proposal; accept our proposal; do not allow the subsidized student loan
interest rate to rise on July 1.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from
Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 20 seconds.
Mr. ALEXANDER. It is reassuring to me my friend on the other side of
the aisle is reading the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. I
am sure that will have some constructive benefit over the next several
months. But here is the bottom line, a result. This is the same as the
House-passed bill which freezes interest at 3.4 percent for a year. We
send it to the House, down to the President, he signs it, the problem
is solved. Instead of raising taxes on small businesspeople, we give
back to students the money they should have had the benefit of when the
other side took over the whole student loan program before.
If you want a result, please vote yes. If you want more debate and
delay, vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. The President has already said if the Republican measure
were to pass and sent to him, he would veto it. That is a nonstarter.
Surely my friend from Tennessee does not want to cut out all of this
funding that we do for hepatitis screening and colorectal screening,
diabetes prevention, vaccination for our kids, all of which are funded.
All of that would be ended by their amendment.
I do not know what my friend is talking about in terms of student
money and this and that. Their provision takes all of this money out of
the Prevention and Wellness Fund. That is not what we want. We do not
want to keep our kids from getting vaccinations or hepatitis screening
or diabetes prevention in order to keep the interest rates low. Let's
close the tax loophole that has been talked about, that both Senator
Reid from Nevada and Senator Reed from Rhode Island talked about. Close
that tax loophole and send it to the President. He will sign it. That
way we will keep the interest rates down at 3.4 percent and not allow
them to double on July 1.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. REID. Has all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 35 seconds and the majority
38 seconds.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Our case is so compelling, Mr. President. We yield
back the rest of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Time has been yielded back. We think there will be two more
votes. I can't say there will be no more votes. We have a few more
items to be worked out, such as flood insurance. I can't give everyone
that assurance at this time.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Ms. SNOWE (when her name was called). Present.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Blumenthal) is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 62, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 112 Leg.]
YEAS--34
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--62
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
[[Page S3611]]
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coburn
Conrad
Coons
Corker
DeMint
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Snowe
NOT VOTING--3
Blumenthal
Hutchison
Kirk
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while the Republican alternative was
definitely better than the Democrat-endorsed proposal, at the end of
the day, neither option presented a long term answer to the impending
rise in student loan interest rates.
In 2007, Congress passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act,
which I opposed. This legislation used a stepped reduction of interest
rates for subsidized Stafford loans, from 6.8 percent to the current
3.4 percent. Also as a part of this law, these rates are scheduled to
reset to the original 6.8 percent on July 1. So for five years, we have
known this day was coming. A one-year extension of the current interest
rate is merely a six billion dollar temporary fix. It would simply
postpone finding an actual solution to the problem of college
affordability. Congress has gotten too comfortable with band aid fixes:
payments to physicians, the Highway bill, and flood insurance being
recent examples. It is because of increased government intervention
that we continually find ourselves in this predicament. With every
government takeover, whether it is education, health care, or the EPA,
the result is less competition, less consumer choice, and less
innovation.
Mr. President, I understand the importance and value of a good
education. My wife was a teacher, and my two daughters became teachers
as well, one even at a university. I also commend the efforts of all
students who strive to achieve a higher education and improve their
lives, especially those struggling through financial burdens. However,
we owe it to these students to address the problem, not just put a band
aid on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________