[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 77 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3916-S3917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             REGULAR ORDER

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the 
remarks of the majority leader with regard to our late colleague Frank 
Lautenberg. He was, indeed, a member of the greatest generation, having 
fought in World War II and also has had distinguished service in the 
Senate.
  I would also like to mention to my friend the majority leader, before 
he leaves the floor, I indicated to him before the recess that I 
intended to bring up each day going forward a commitment he made to the 
Senate back in January of 2011 and again in January of 2013--the 
beginning of the last two Congresses--with regard to using the nuclear 
option to change the rules of the Senate.
  The most important currency of the realm in the Senate is one's word, 
and my good friend the majority leader said in January of 2011: ``I 
will oppose any effort in this Congress, or the next, to change the 
Senate's rules other than through the regular order.'' It was not a 
contingent commitment, it was not a contingent based on my judgment of 
good behavior, it was a commitment.
  Then again in January of 2013, in an exchange the majority leader and 
I had on the floor, I said I would confirm with the majority leader 
that the Senate would not consider other resolutions relating to any 
standing order or rules of this Congress unless they went through the 
regular order process. That was my question to my friend the majority 
leader to which he replied, ``That is correct.'' Any other resolutions 
related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order 
process, including consideration by the Rules Committee.

[[Page S3917]]

  My point is the commitment has been made, an unequivocal commitment 
has been made. In the Senate, of course, how we deal with all issues is 
related to keeping our word. It will be important for the Senate to 
understand, before we go much further this year, what the majority 
leader's intentions are. Does he plan to keep his word issued in 
January of 2011 and January of 2013 or not? I think the Senate is 
entitled to an answer. All Senators would be entitled to an answer, but 
particularly the minority would be interested in an answer to that 
before we go any further into this session.


                             Student Loans

  With regard to the loan rates for students, I think it is interesting 
to note, as we go into this needless controversy because we are not 
that far apart, one of the driving reasons for the increase in the 
student loan rates--two of them--is directly related to the passage of 
ObamaCare. In ObamaCare, the Democratic majority, without a single 
Republican vote, abolished the student loan program. The government 
took it over and raised the rates. So that is one reason rates are 
going up. The second reason is the Medicaid mandate, which the Supreme 
Court said is optional, but States are now wrestling with whether to 
accept this additional responsibility for vast new numbers of Americans 
who will receive a free health care card.
  The two biggest items in every State budget are Medicaid and 
education. As Medicaid expenses rise, what State governments all across 
America have done is reduced educational funding to public colleges and 
universities, and in response to that the colleges and universities 
raise tuition. So the new generation coming along is getting it both 
ways: The rates are going up and the tuition is going up, so they have 
to pay back more at a higher rate, all related to something young 
people had nothing to do with, which was the passage of ObamaCare.
  Washington has had to grapple with a lot of big issues over the past 
few years and we have had some pretty heated debates because there were 
real philosophical differences over how to address those challenges. 
That is why it is so nice to work on an issue where the two parties are 
in relative agreement. We are not that far apart on this student loan 
issue now. Neither party wants to see the rates rise in July, and both 
the President and Republicans generally agree on the way to make that 
happen. So there is no reason we should be fighting over this issue at 
this particular point. There is no reason the President should be 
holding campaign-style events to bash Republicans for supposedly 
opposing him on student loans when we are in agreement on the need for 
a permanent reform and when the plan we put forward is actually pretty 
similar to his own. Yet, somehow, that is what we saw last Friday at 
the White House.
  That is certainly not going to help the students. Having a true 
policy debate is one thing, but provoking a partisan squabble seemingly 
for its own sake is, frankly, ridiculous. Our constituents sent us here 
to govern, not to try to pick fake fights in some crusade to restore 
Nancy Pelosi to her speakership.
  What I am saying to the President and my Democratic friends is this: 
Let's put politicking aside. There is no reason for a fight here. I 
hope we can finally begin to work. Students are counting on us to 
actually get something done.
  Here is a quick rundown of where we are on the issue. There is the 
Senate Democratic plan that everyone knows is just a political bill--a 
short-term fix that would only apply to less than half of the students 
who plan to take out new loans--new loans--and it would impose 
permanent tax hikes--permanent tax hikes--in return for a temporary 
plan for half of the students. Let me repeat that: Another temporary 
fix paid for with a permanent tax hike. Even the President has 
dismissed this approach. So in my view it is not worth much of a 
discussion at this point.
  The fact is the proposals Republicans put forward are actually closer 
to what President Obama has asked for. We both agree on the need for 
permanent reform that takes the decisions on interest rates out of the 
hands of politicians. The House has already passed a bill that would 
achieve those two goals, and Senate Republicans have put forward a bill 
that is also similar to the President's proposal, as both of our plans 
would employ a variable market rate that, as with a mortgage, doesn't 
change over the life of an individual student's loan. The President 
said he opposed a bill that didn't lock in rates. Ours gives students 
the certainty that the President agrees they should have. So if the 
President were serious about getting this done, he would have spent 
that time on Friday ringing up Senators to see how we could bridge our 
relatively small differences, not having a press conference and bashing 
Congress. This is one issue where both parties can find quick 
agreement, but only if Washington Democrats have the will to do so. 
Young Americans already have enough to worry about. They don't need 
Washington creating even more problems for them.
  The youth unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds is over 13 
percent. In Kentucky it is more than 14 percent. Once many students 
graduate from college, they face a highly uncertain future. So the 
President has a choice to make: Does he want to push some campaign 
issue for 2014 or does he want to address the problem here and prevent 
this rate increase?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________