[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 98 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5584-S5602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      KEEP STUDENT LOANS AFFORDABLE ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. I move to proceed to Calendar No. 124, S. 1238, Senator 
Reed's student loan bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1238) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     to extend the current reduced interest rate for undergraduate 
     Federal Direct Stafford Loans for 1 year, to modify required 
     distribution rules for pension plans, and for other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following the remarks of Senator McConnell, 
the time until noon will be equally divided and controlled between the 
two leaders, with each Senator permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes 
each.
  At noon there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed on S. 
1238, the student loan bill.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. For more than a month, I have been coming to the floor 
to talk about student loan reform. I have said that to an outside 
observer, this is an issue that should have been an easy bipartisan 
slam dunk. I have noted that the proposals put forward by both 
President Obama and congressional Republicans have been strikingly 
similar. We both agree on the need for a permanent reform, and we agree 
on the need to help all students and not just some of them. Yet here we 
are after the July 1 deadline and Democrats are still blocking 
bipartisan student loan reform.
  You have to ask yourself why. It is because they have prioritized 
politics over helping students. There are basically two different 
Democratic groups battling for supremacy: a more responsible reform-
permanently faction and a more political campaign-permanently faction.
  In the first group are the sensible Democratic Senators who agree 
with both President Obama and Republicans that it is time to finally 
solve this issue. Washington should actually help students and stop 
using them as pawns in a political chess match. They support the 
bipartisan compromise plan put forward by Democratic, Republican, and 
Independent Senators alike.
  Unfortunately, this faction is opposed and outnumbered by the 
campaign-permanently Democrats. They are the ones whom I suspect would 
actually prefer to see rates lapse so they can manufacture another 
campaign issue. To hear the musings of some top Democrats, one would 
have to conclude that the Democratic leadership is on the side of 
campaigning permanently and against helping students.
  As the majority leader put it a few weeks ago: ``[We're] not looking 
for compromise.''
  Another Democratic Senator in leadership boasted a goal in this 
debate was to show ``the difference between the two parties on a key 
issue.''
  I mean, this is just the kind of thing that makes people so cynical 
about Washington. Washington Democrats yell and wave their arms about 
the need for something, and then they appear to do everything possible 
behind the scenes to sabotage it, apparently so they can manufacture a 
politically convenient crisis. They are doing it on student loans, and 
they have been doing it with nominations too.
  All week it seems they have been breathlessly telling any reporter 
who will listen that we have a nominations crisis around here; that 
Republicans are holding up the President's nominees. It is really 
laughable.
  To hear some of the over-the-top rhetoric, one would think 
Republicans have blocked all of the President's second-term Cabinet 
nominees. But then, of course, you would be entirely wrong.
  The truth is, since the President swore his oath of office in 
January, the Senate has confirmed every single Cabinet pick that has 
been brought up for a vote--every single one of them.
  Let me repeat that. Every single one that has been brought up for a 
vote, all of them have been confirmed. Many of them have been confirmed 
on unanimous or nearly unanimous votes. Yesterday, the ranking 
Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee announced his 
support for an up-or-down vote on Gina McCarthy's nomination to be EPA 
Administrator. So there is no question she is going to be confirmed.

  It is clear that facts are getting in the way of the Democrats' 
arguments, which is why they are forced to gin up this fake--absolutely 
fake--nominations ``crisis.'' It is why we see them bringing out all 
the nominees who have been appointed to office either illegally or who 
are exceedingly controversial. Democrats themselves have delayed 
consideration of these nominees literally for months--because the 
majority leader determines the timing--so they could pull them all out 
of the woodwork at the same time, in the hopes the Senate would reject 
them.
  Democrats are out there daring the Senate to do it. They want it so 
badly it appears to be their goal. And there is a reason for this. It 
is because the far-left base seems to be getting fed up with the 
democratic process. The big labor bosses are sick of waiting for the 
special interest legislative kickbacks they must feel they are owed, 
and now they know that altering the rules of our democracy is the only 
way to get what they want.
  This isn't going to work. The facts show the truth, and the truth is 
that any crisis over nominations is a crisis of Washington Democrats' 
own making--one they have stirred up intentionally--an absolutely 
manufactured crisis by any objective analysis.
  As of last night, there were 140 nominees pending in various 
committees.

[[Page S5585]]

These nominees are under the control of the majority, not us. And there 
are a little over two dozen or so eligible for expedited floor 
consideration, many of whom Republicans have already said we would pass 
unanimously. Why hasn't the majority leader called for votes on any of 
these folks? Clearly, if anyone is obstructing here, it is the majority 
leader, because this whole conversation isn't about making the Senate 
work better, and he knows it. It is all about his power grab. Well, let 
me caution him again to think long and hard about what he is doing.
  As one of the most senior members of the Democratic Party said 
yesterday, deploying the nuclear option would mean breaking the rules 
to change the rules--breaking the rules to change the rules. As the 
majority leader himself once said, it would ``ruin our country.'' And 
we all know why. Once the trigger is pulled, there would be no limit to 
the consequences, not just for Republicans or for our country but for 
Democrats too. They should think very carefully about the ramifications 
for them when a future Republican President makes his own appointments 
to the Cabinet and to the Federal bench.
  Look, we know Senate Democrats are not serious about implementing 
student loan reform. They have already demonstrated that by blocking 
just about every bipartisan effort to do so. But on the nuclear option, 
it is certainly my hope that cooler heads will prevail. I have to 
believe they will choose the long-term health of our democracy and of 
their party over what frankly amounts to the narrowest--the narrowest--
of short-term political considerations. Pulling the nuclear trigger is 
not something the history books will look favorably on, and they know 
it. And, of course, there will be consequences.
  When the President was in the Senate back in 2005, and the then-
Republican majority was thinking about something akin to this, this is 
what the President had to say. ``If they choose to change the rules and 
put an end to the democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, 
and the gridlock will only get worse.'' The President was entirely 
correct.
  Senator Reid said in 2009, a couple of years ago, ``There is no way I 
would employ the use of the nuclear option. No way.'' He said it would 
``ruin our country.'' He said, ``It would have destroyed the Senate as 
we know it.''
  Hopefully, that was not then and there is some different standard 
now. And, of course, we know we had this debate at the beginning of the 
year. Actually, we have had it at the beginning of the last two 
Congresses, and the Senate--the occupant of the Chair had newly arrived 
here--voted on two rules changes and two standing orders, after which 
the majority leader said, ``The rules issue for this Congress is 
over.''
  He gave his word in January of this year. We are waiting to see if 
that word will be kept.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

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


                           Order of Business

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 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.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. 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. BURR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the 
future of student loans for America's students. When I say students, I 
have to define who that is because, as we know, today we have students 
of all ages.
  We have a category of students where a financial impact requirement 
is applied, such as for a 19-year-old who has entered their freshman 
year, and depending upon where the income of their family is, under the 
current system they may get a subsidized loan. The maximum they can 
receive under that subsidized loan as an undergraduate is $3,500.
  I would be willing to bet the President pro tempore and I both can't 
pick an institution in any of our States where the tuition on an annual 
basis is $3,500. It doesn't happen today, and that is the reality that 
has been left out of the debate so far. This debate has been all about 
politics and it has not been about students and how to apply 
affordability as broadly as we can in the marketplace.
  Let me describe where we are today. Between 1965 and 1992 the cap on 
the student loan program in this country was 10 percent--10 percent. In 
the mid-2000s, Congress, very politically, said: You know what. We are 
going to adjust it, and subsidized loans are going to be at 3.4 percent 
and nonsubsidized loans are going to be at 6.8 percent, graduate loans 
are going to be at 7.9 percent, and if you are a parent borrowing, you 
are going to have an even higher rate, in the 8-plus percent range.
  That strikes me as incredibly unfair. We are taking two 
undergraduates--two 19-year-old freshmen--entering the same institution 
with the same financial obligation and we are saying to one: We are 
going to give you a rate on your student loan that is half of the 
person who sits in the seat next to you--half. In this chair, the 
student will pay 3.4 percent, and the student sitting in the chair next 
to him will pay 6.8 percent. Understand, the parents of the person 
sitting in this chair, depending upon the cost of the institution, may 
have an income over $100,000. Yet they may qualify for a Federal 
subsidy.
  Let me suggest to you that the marketplace is the thing that ought to 
dictate and decide what the rate is. That is the only thing that is 
fair to the taxpayers in this country--the predictability of knowing it 
is tied to something.
  Let me suggest that the bill we are going to take up--and we are 
going to vote on a motion to proceed at 12 noon today--is a bill that 
was created in the 2000s. Two years ago we kicked the can down the road 
and said we are going to extend this inequitable student loan program 
at 3.4 percent for some, 6.8 percent for others, 7.9 percent, and 8-
plus percent for parents. Why? Because we are overcharging some to 
subsidize others. Let me say that again. We are overcharging some--we 
are overcharging some 19-year-old undergraduate freshmen in college--at 
6.8 percent so they will subsidize the 3.4 percent we are charging on 
the subsidized loans.
  Let me point to a chart I have here which shows undergraduates under 
the student loan program. This is a comparison. Actually, let me move 
to a different chart, because this one best displays what I am talking 
about.
  Twenty-six percent of our Nation's kids are undergraduates and are 
subsidized, and 55 percent of the eligible students are either 
undergraduates or graduate students who fall under a 6.8-percent 
interest rate. So when the Senate majority leader came to the floor and 
said some were upstairs trying to negotiate a deal, he was 100-percent 
accurate. But the reality is we are still only going to have a vote on 
one plan at 12 o'clock. There is no option for Members of Congress.
  What I would suggest is that this displays why, at best, there should 
be two options and, at worst, we ought to vitiate the motion to proceed 
and see if we can come up with another bipartisan agreement.
  You see, another option--the Manchin bill--is a bipartisan approach.
  It is Democrats and Republicans coming together and saying we can 
agree on something that we think is fair and equitable and financially 
sustainable.
  But this is the plan we are going to have a vote on at 12. Fifty-five 
percent of the population of students, quite frankly, are being 
screwed. They are overpaying. They are paying 6.8 percent for interest, 
when a home mortgage for 15 years is 3.8 percent. Yet we are charging 
students 6.8 percent, and we are saying that to go to this is an 
injustice to our students, where all of a sudden we take 64 percent of 
the kids and we treat them all alike and we charge them 3.66 percent. 
Something is inherently wrong in the debate we are having.
  If this is about kids and about affordability, this is the plan on 
which we

[[Page S5586]]

should be having the motion to proceed, not this one. This plan merely 
kicks the can down the road for 12 more months.
  Let me say this plan wasn't created by Joe Manchin or Richard Burr or 
Tom Coburn or Senator King or Senator Alexander. This plan was created 
by the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office in 
their March 2011 report to Congress came up with the idea of tying the 
interest rate to the 10-year Treasury bond, except the CBO says it 
should be the 10-year Treasury bond plus 3 percent. That is what 
Senator Coburn and I introduced. When Senator Manchin, Senator King, 
Senator Alexander, Senator Carper, and others got involved, we decided 
what we needed to do was continue to have a blended rate. We all agreed 
that an undergraduate student shouldn't face an interest rate schedule 
that is not equitable to all undergraduates.
  So instead of applying it to 26 percent, we applied it to 100 percent 
of the undergraduates. We said: If you are an undergraduate in college, 
we are going to give you the best rate, which is the 10-year bond plus 
1.85. It is fair. It is understandable. It is predictable. It is 
consistent. One year in advance you know exactly what your rate is 
going to be because it is determined on the 10-year bond every May.
  My good friend Senator Harkin, whom I have great affection for, came 
to the floor and said we were balancing the budget on the back of the 
student loan program. The student loan program is a $1.3 trillion 
program. Based upon the CBO score on this bill, it had a 0.7-percent 
surplus. By Washington standards, in a $1 billion program, 0.7 would be 
a rounding error. This is a $1.3 trillion program. Let me assure the 
President and my colleagues, this is a rounding error. I can't look 
everybody in the face and say it might not cost us $100 billion. It 
might save us $100 billion. But we are certainly not balancing a $17 
trillion deficit debt on the back of the student loan program. Let me 
assure you of that, and for any who suggest we are, that is, in fact, 
disingenuous.
  This is the first time I have been accused of balancing the budget on 
the backs of our kids. But in 2010, as part of the health care reform 
act, Democrats ended the Federal Family Education Loan Program, FFEL, 
at a savings of $61 billion. Of that, the Democrats directed $19 
billion to deficit reduction and the rest to help pay for ObamaCare, 
the Affordable Care Act.
  If I am being accused of balancing the budget on 0.7 percent, 
determined by CBO, and in 2010 the Democrats voted to eliminate the 
FFEL Program and save $61 billion and applied $19 billion to deficit 
reduction and the rest to help the Affordable Care Act, then they 
plowed this ground long before I did.
  As a matter of fact, in 2007, as part of the College Cost Reduction 
and Access Act, the Democrats found $21 billion in savings and spent a 
good amount of it on new programs--and then directed $1 billion to 
deficit reduction.
  I said earlier, I have great affection for Senator Harkin. Senator 
Harkin said this should be part of the Higher Education Reauthorization 
Act--that may or may not happen next year.
  We made changes to the interest rate on student loans outside of the 
higher education reauthorization in 2012 with a 1-year extension of the 
3.4 percent. We did it in 2010 with the elimination of the FFEL 
Program. We did it in 2005 under the CCRAA, the Deficit Reduction Act. 
Senator Harkin's Appropriations Committee has made changes to the 
eligibility rules for Pell grants each of the past several years 
outside of the higher education authorization, including the 
elimination of summer eligibility, ability to benefit, and lowering of 
the automatic enrollment for low-income students.
  It is not fair to come and say to me that I am doing it outside of 
higher education reauthorization when there is continually a track 
record of the person who accused us of doing it of doing it himself.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. BURR. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I thank the good Senator for working in such a 
bipartisan manner. I think this truly is a bipartisan bill.
  This bill has been described as belonging to one party or the other, 
and that is wrong. Senator Burr, Senator Alexander, Senator Coburn, 
Senator King, Senator Carper, and I sat down and looked at how we could 
fix something. We looked at it from the standpoint that this deadline 
has hit. One year ago we extended it. They said it was the political 
atmosphere and we had to extend it. We knew that year would come and, 
similar to everything else that has happened here for the last 2 or 3 
years, nothing gets done. We just said: Enough is enough. It has to be 
fixed, and if we want to fix it, to understand the program, we have to 
look at the whole program.
  I think now they are making accusations that students are paying 
profits so we can pay down the debt. Whether there is profit built in 
depends on the accounting procedures used by our Federal Government. It 
was built in. You can blame whomever you want to blame, but it is built 
into it. We have to deal with the facts in front of us.
  What I would ask the Senator, all of us have agreed in a bipartisan 
manner that no profit will be made on the backs of students, what we 
can determine through the bill we are working on, right?
  Mr. BURR. That is 100 percent correct.
  Mr. MANCHIN. So we have all come to that agreement--Democrats and 
Republicans--no profit in debt reduction. It should go to lowering the 
rate.
  Mr. BURR. That is correct.
  Mr. MANCHIN. We agreed on that. We have agreed on a long-term fix, 10 
years, rather than kicking it down the road another year, knowing 
another year will come and go and we are probably going to be standing 
here debating. That is the conclusion we have come to, which is 
different than what the House sent us. I applaud the Senator for 
working with us to put in a fixed rate.
  So if it is at 3.66 this year and I am able to qualify and I am 
subsidized at $3,500 of a subsidized loan the taxpayer will be paying, 
that 3.66 is fixed for the full life of the loan. We agreed on that, 
correct?
  Mr. BURR. That is correct.
  Mr. MANCHIN. So when they say it is a Republican bill or a Democratic 
bill, that is erroneous. That is not fair. This is truly a bipartisan 
effort, and we are working with all of our colleagues in my caucus--and 
I know the Senator is in his caucus--to understand that if I have a 
subsidized Stafford loan, that means the Federal Government--the 
taxpayers of this country--will pay my interest while I am in school, 
correct?
  Mr. BURR. That is correct.
  Mr. MANCHIN. At the end of that, then I pick up whatever interest 
rate has accumulated while I was in school, and I take it from that day 
forward.
  What I think a lot of our colleagues don't understand, I can't make 
it just on that $3,500. I have to borrow more money. So now, if I go 
with my colleagues on the Democratic side, if I borrow more money, I 
have to borrow that at 6.8 percent.
  We were able, in a bipartisan way, to bring that to 3.66 percent for 
all undergraduates, correct?
  Mr. BURR. The Senator is correct. I might add to my good friend, this 
chart shows exactly what we talked about. Under the plan on which we 
will vote at 12, because of the need for students in the subsidized 
category to borrow additional money at 6.8 percent, at the end of their 
process, they owe $78 a month, where under the bipartisan bill, where 
every undergraduate is treated the same, they owe $75. It is actually 
cheaper, even for the undergrads who are subsidized.
  Mr. MANCHIN. So the money I would have to borrow, even though I 
qualify because of my income for a subsidized loan, I don't have to pay 
the interest on an annual basis. So by bringing it down to one low 
rate, I am making much lower payments. So that is less obligation and 
less hardship on me as a college student to make that lower payment 
than it would be to make that higher payment.
  We want to help the subsidized, very poor kids. I might be poor, but 
I can't make it on just what you give me because I am poor. I have to 
have a little more help. Then, on top of that, I want to go to graduate 
school after I get my college degree. So then I am at 6.8 again. Ours 
brings it down to 5.21, which is more savings, which I know the Senator 
agrees to.
  If I may ask my colleague from Tennessee, right now we know we have a

[[Page S5587]]

consolidated cap at 8.25 percent. Let's say I graduate and I went to 
school during the high recession times. At the end, I have an 8.75-
percent accumulative interest I owe. I can cap that and consolidate at 
8.25, correct?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator from 
West Virginia.
  First, I wish to congratulate Senators Manchin and Burr for helping 
the full Senate understand this issue. This is similar to a lot of 
issues we have to face. They are not simple. I used to be a college 
president and the U.S. Secretary of Education. I had to re-educate 
myself on this legislation. I still made some mistakes.
  I was saying last night, for example, that there were only 2 million 
subsidized loans. What I was forgetting was the point that the Senator 
from West Virginia makes, which is that 80 percent of the students who 
have subsidized loans, the low-income students, also have unsubsidized 
loans. So when we only take care of these subsidized loans, we are 
leaving 7 million students with unsubsidized loans out here hanging 
high and dry, and nobody is taking care of them. So we are hurting both 
the middle-class families and the low-income families when we have an 
incomplete solution.
  The Senator from West Virginia posed a question. Let's say I 
graduated from the University of Tennessee and I had two loans; I had a 
subsidized loan, which means the government paid my interest while I 
was in college. Typically, if I am similar to four out of five 
students, I also had an unsubsidized loan, so I accrued that interest. 
Suddenly the interest rates have gone up for me because the country's 
interest rates have gone up to 10 percent. What I can do is take all my 
government loans at once and turn them into an 8.25-percent loan. So 
that is, in effect, a cap on my loan, and then I would have the choice.
  I would say this to the Senators from West Virginia and North 
Carolina. I have heard some Senators say that when I consolidate my 
loan at 8.25 percent, that means the student is going to have to pay a 
lot of interest because it spreads the loan out over a long period of 
time.
  But does not the student have that choice? Isn't it similar to a 15-
year mortgage, where you have higher monthly payments, but you pay less 
interest because you pay it off quicker?
  Mr. MANCHIN. I think what they are referring to--and I might have 
misunderstood, but I think I am accurate on this. Everyone will take 
the loans for the longest period of time, and I just got out of school 
so I want the smallest payment. Four or five years out I have a better 
job. Instead of paying $150 a month, I can afford to pay $300 or $400.
  There is no penalty for me to shorten that, as it would be in a 
conventional market. Is that how the Senator understands it?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask consent that the Senators from 
North Carolina and West Virginia and I be permitted to engage in a 
colloquy for a few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. That is how I understand it. I would say to the 
Senator from North Carolina,--I would presume a graduate of the 
University of North Carolina would be smart enough to make that 
decision for herself or himself?
  Mr. BURR. I think they would. I think one of the agreements we came 
to was that students ought to be in control of their decision about 
their loan rate based upon what is available to them. If students go 
through the next 4 years and they have a combined interest rate of 
about 4.5 percent for the life of the loan, why in the world would they 
be excited at 8.25? If for some reason 10 years from now somebody got 
out of school and their combined interest rate was 9 percent, we give 
them the option of going back to 8.25.
  I think the Senator from West Virginia made an extremely good point. 
For the most subsidized students, they can only borrow $3,500. Think of 
the institutions that are out there--none of them have an annual 
tuition of $3,500. We know they are going to borrow out of the 6.8-
percent pot. What we are offering is that the pots are the same and 
that the subsidy is that--for students who qualify for the subsidy--
they are not responsible for the interest rate while they are in 
school. That subsidy still exists. It is just that we are not 
overcharging one group and we are certainly not overcharging the ones 
we just subsidized because they have to borrow more money to complete 
their college education.
  Mr. MANCHIN. To both of my friends, let me say that I graduate from 
college--no matter what the interest rates are, no matter what they 
might have been--I graduate and economic times are tough. I find a job 
that is not what I think my value is, but I find a job at $40,000--
$40,000. I am married now, and I have a child or two. Don't we have in 
our bill a protection which has been in place for a long time--both 
Democrats and Republicans have supported this protection--which is 
called income-based repayment? By law, I can only pay 15 percent of my 
disposable income. I think that breaks down to my payment can only be 
$142. Isn't that a subsidy too? Wouldn't we be subsidizing that to an 
extent? I am also understanding that if my economic condition does not 
improve and that is all I pay, by the end of 25 years it is exonerated. 
I pay nothing. I am done.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. If I could respond to the Senator who suggested 
that,--the answer is yes. I think it is fair to say that the 
consolidation option that a student has in case the rates go up, at 
8.25 percent can be called a cap. It is not a hard cap, but it is a 
cap. And the second cap is the income repayment provision of which the 
Senator speaks. If you are making $40,000 a year, after they apply the 
formula you probably are not spending more than about 10 percent of 
your income--it is something called disposable income--to pay for your 
student loan. Loan repayment then continues for about 20 years. If at 
the end of 20 years you have not paid your loan off, the loan is 
forgiven.
  Any student who has a loan has that opportunity. They can consolidate 
at 8.25 percent, and income repayment limits the amount they have to 
pay each year. So they have that.
  One of the things I noticed about the Manchin-Burr bill that I would 
like to ask the Senators to talk about is that you have come up with--
what I am beginning to understand, as I study this more and more--a 
very significant contribution: the idea that all of the undergraduate 
student loans--which, as I understand it, are about two out of three of 
the loans--should have the same interest rate. First, it is confusing 
the way undergraduate loan interest rates are now, but the other reason 
is that about 80 percent of the people who have subsidized loans, the 
low-income students, also have unsubsidized loans. So your contribution 
is to say: Let's simplify it, provide certainty over a long period of 
time, and treat all undergraduates the same. Otherwise, it seems to me, 
you are leaving 7 million middle-income students who have unsubsidized 
loans high and dry, and the 80 percent of the low-income students who 
also have these unsubsidized loans, you are not helping them either.
  I wonder if the Senator could comment on this idea? I notice, without 
a cap, you are able to get the interest rate for all undergraduate 
loans down to about 3.66 percent, which is a pretty low rate.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Let me say very quickly--and I will use $10 million 
hypothetically that is borrowed every year--$10 billion, $10 million, 
whatever you want to use--25 percent of that money goes to the 
subsidized, just 25 percent. I understand that it is close to about 40 
percent of the students who participate in borrowing money, but the 
volume of money is about 25 percent, one-fourth of the money that is 
loaned out. So if we are keeping the rates low on one-fourth of the 
money, that means we artificially have much higher rates on three-
fourths of the money students need to get an education.
  What we are saying is that we are going to bring a larger majority of 
that down to the lowest rate. We think it is a good policy that we 
should be discussing and talking about. That is where we are. That is 
why we came up with the plan we did, but we reduced all the rates. The 
PLUS loans I think went from 7.9 to 6.21, yes, and then the graduate 
loans went from 6.8 to 5.21.

[[Page S5588]]

But if you do all of the undergraduate, it would go from 3.4 to 3.66, a 
quarter and a point--.26.
  Mr. BURR. The most significant part is for the undergraduates who 
were not subsidized, they would go from 6.8 to 3.6.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Right. Right.
  Mr. BURR. This goes to the heart of what the Senator from Tennessee 
said. Today the subsidy goes to 26 percent of our students; 55 percent 
pay the 6.8 rate. Under the bipartisan bill, 64 percent--all 
undergraduates--get 3.66.
  If this is about affordability, if this is about what provides the 
greatest flexibility for students to afford it, then the answer is 
clear. It is on the chart. But it also computes in the monthly payments 
to which students are obligated. The fact is that for a typical student 
in their first year, taking $5,000 out, $3,500 comes from the subsidy--
$5,500 out, $3,500 comes from the subsidy, $2,000 comes from the 6.8 
rate.

  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question.
  Mr. BURR. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just want to ask--I am sorry, I couldn't see the chart 
from the other side, so I came here. On the undergraduate student, 
3.66, 64 percent, for how many years does that hold, that 3.66 percent? 
For how many years?
  Mr. BURR. It holds for 1 year until the readjustment of the 10-year 
bond, which could by higher, it could be lower.
  Mr. HARKIN. Just 1 year.
  Mr. BURR. Higher than it was in May----
  Mr. HARKIN. And what does the CBO project the rates will do in the 
next 10 years?
  Mr. BURR. I am sure the Senator came with a chart. But let me say 
that we have an 8.25-percent consolidation cap. The reality is that if 
you are going to move to a market-based system, the question we have as 
Senators is, How do we drive interest rates the lowest for our Nation's 
students? If you put a hard cap of 8.25, then all of a sudden this 
interest rate goes up, if we are getting to a zero surplus. It is not 
going to cost us anything, not going to make anything; 3.66 goes up, it 
doesn't go down. So by having the flexible cap at 8.25, where anybody 
can consolidate at any time, we are able to do it at the 10-year bond 
plus 1.85. And this is all CBO numbers. We are using the same source 
for this.
  But I think at the heart of this, and I say to my good friend from 
West Virginia, the real question is, Are we going to let 26 percent 
participate in an attractive interest rate or are we going to extend it 
to 64 percent, which is the entire class of undergraduates?
  Mr. MANCHIN. That was the bipartisan agreement we had. I appreciate 
that very much. Let me say, here is the last 10 years. If we would use 
the last 10 years, with the bipartisan bill kicked in, this is what the 
students who basically are paying the higher rate now--6.8 percent 
frozen--would have been able to take advantage of, the lower rates. 
They never got a chance to take advantage of the lower rates. All we 
are assuming is that if rates go up in 3 or 4 years, they are going to 
be paying higher rates. We never assume the market--that is the reason 
why you fluctuate with the market on the 10-year T-bill. This would 
have happened with the 10-year T-bill. Look how much lower they would 
have been paying in the last 10 years.
  I know we can all use figures any way we want to use them, but the 
bottom line is that it is either going to be market--it has always been 
that before. There have been caps that have been much higher, and we 
are trying to find something that is affordable, but the bottom line 
is, do we try to protect the lowest rate?
  Most undergraduates have the hardest times. Once you get your 
undergraduate degree, you have a much higher percentage of making it. 
If you want to get a graduate degree and a higher Ph.D. degree, you 
have a much better chance.
  The bottom line is that we want to keep the rates low so that when 
students go out they are not burdened with the highest payments. We 
have a lot of protections built in that a lot of times are 
misunderstood and are not explained properly, and I am glad we are 
having this colloquy.
  Mr. BURR. Would the Senator from Iowa like another question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I have a statement to make but not a question.
  Mr. BURR. I will wrap up and move on.
  Mr. HARKIN. If we are going to get into a colloquy, that is fine.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Yes.
  Mr. BURR. I would rather make the points that I need to because at 12 
we are going to vote on one bill. We are going to vote on a 3.4-percent 
extension, kicking the can down the road for 12 months, not fixing the 
problem, not finding the solution, and continuing to overcharge some 
students and subsidize another pool and go to bed at night and feel 
good about this.
  I think the reason we have a bipartisan agreement is there are some 
who do not feel good about that. We look at it and we say the Senate 
has not done what people sent us here to do, and that is to get it as 
close to right as we can.
  Again, I say to my colleagues--and I can go to the CBO again--the CBO 
scored the bill, and CBO says the bipartisan bill is within .7 percent 
of having no cost and no surplus. I am not sure you can get any closer 
than that. They have also told us verbally and showed us in scoring: 
put the cap in and you raise the interest rate on all students, all 
postgraduates, all parents. And our objective, when Senator Manchin and 
Senator King and Senator Coburn and Senator Alexander got into the 
discussion, was, How can we get rates as low as we can? Our focus was 
on the affordability for the students; secondarily, the sustainability 
of the program, which was long-term, something we do not visit every 1 
or 2 or 3 years.
  Let me get into specifics because there are four proposals out there. 
One of them has already passed the House of Representatives. The House 
of Representatives has a 10-year variable rate that fluctuates 
annually. For unsubsidized loans, the rate is 4.31; for subsidized 
loans, the rate is 4.31, which is 10-year plus 2.5 percent; for PLUS 
loans, 5.74. It removes the consolidation cap--removes it--and it 
creates caps of 8.5 and 10.5 percent.
  The vote that we will have at noon, I think everybody knows it is a 
6.8-percent rate for most students. Twenty-six percent get a subsidized 
rate of 3.4 percent. The PLUS loans are at 7.9 percent, and that is 18 
percent of the loans at 7.9 percent.
  Under the President's proposal, the unsubsidized is--I think this is 
backward. I think it is the subsidized at 10-year and .93; the 
unsubsidized at 10 year, 2.93; the PLUS at 10 year plus 3.93; and it is 
uncapped and fixed for life.
  So it brings us to the bipartisan bill. The Senator from West 
Virginia said it well. What were the agreements we made? We are not 
going to make money and we are not going to lose money We are at .7 
percent, according to CBO.
  An undergraduate is an undergraduate. We should not cheat one to 
subsidize another. But there should be a subsidy for low-income at-risk 
students. The assumption is that they are not responsible for the 
interest payment while they are in school. The reality is that we 
extend the same 10-year bond plus 1.85 percent to all undergraduates.
  For the graduate students, we would bring the rate down to 10-year 
plus 3.4, and for PLUS loans, 10-year plus 4.4, and we keep in place 
the consolidation cap that has been in law. Let me remind my colleagues 
what I said earlier before they came to the floor. From 1965 to 1992, 
the cap on student loans was 10 percent. If we put that in today, it 
will raise the percentage each individual is going to pay.

  Mr. MANCHIN. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. BURR. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I am not sure how the Senator voted on the extension a 
year ago. I voted for the extension a year ago.
  Mr. BURR. As did I.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I don't intend to vote on the extension again because we 
have not fixed it. By voting on this extension, what we are voting on 
is 3.4 percent just for the subsidized, and everybody will be at 6.8 
percent, and 7.9 percent for PLUS loans.
  When my colleague is talking about that, the difference of savings 
between our bill--if we got a vote on our bill, which is a compromised, 
bipartisan bill, we would save close to $9 billion in

[[Page S5589]]

interest that students wouldn't have to pay. I believe we agree on 
that.
  Mr. BURR. That is correct.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I think we are going to have a chance to vote on one 
bill, and that is about $2 billion. In West Virginia that is a lot of 
money in savings of $7 billion that students don't have to pay in 
interest, which is across the board for students who have subsidized 
and unsubsidized loans. That is the point we are trying to make, and we 
hope we get that through.
  I know the Senator hopes, as I do, that we get a vote on this today.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MANCHIN. I believe Senator Burr has the floor.
  Mr. BURR. I am happy to yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. My friend from West Virginia made a statement a few 
minutes ago that resonated with me. He said we are trying to get the 
market rates because we always had the rates.
  When I first went to college in 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961, I 
borrowed money under this program. It came into being in 1958, so 1959 
was the first year I borrowed money. It was called the National Defense 
Education Act or the Eisenhower bill. I went back and looked to see 
what the 10-year Treasury note was at that time for those 3 years that 
I borrowed. The 10-year Treasury note at that time ranged between 4.2 
percent and about 4.8 percent. I borrowed money at 2 percent.
  I say to my friend, that is not a market rate. Not only did I borrow 
the money, but all the time I was in college I paid no interest 
charges. I spent 5 years in the military with no interest charges. I 
then went to law school--3 years in law school--with no interest 
charges. Then I had a 1-year grace period after I graduated from law 
school with no interest charges. For all those years the interest rate 
clock never started ticking.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Was that for every student who was in college at that 
time no matter what their ranking or what service they had performed in 
the military or whether they had the GI bill?
  Mr. HARKIN. Everybody.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Everybody in college during that period of time could 
borrow at the low rate of 2 percent with no interest at all?
  Mr. HARKIN. That is right. The reason I raise that is, Why were we so 
special? Why was my generation so special that this country was willing 
to subsidize my education, but for these young people here we are 
saying: No, no, you have to pay interest rates?
  Mr. MANCHIN. Maybe Congress did a better job of getting its financial 
house in order than we have.
  Mr. HARKIN. We made a commitment at that time to invest in a 
generation of young Americans so they wouldn't have a huge amount of 
debt hanging over their heads.
  Mr. BURR. What didn't exist when my colleague went to college and 
graduate school was that we didn't have an income test for repayment. 
We don't charge anybody over 15 percent on an annual basis.
  When the Senator went through the system, he was responsible to pay 
back 100 percent of it. Today, after a certain period of time on the 
subsidized loans, we forgive it. We have a lot of programs that didn't 
exist when he went through school. We have Pell grants that extend a 
tremendous amount of money that is not obligated to be paid back--
$4,000. We have student loan higher education tax credits that did not 
exist when he went through college.
  We have a basket of products. What we are looking at is, How can we 
take one program, which is the rate-based program, and make it as 
attractive and affordable for students as we possibly can? Under this 
scenario, we are able to accomplish that for 64 percent. Under what we 
will vote on, we only do it for 26 percent. We can't help but make the 
argument: You are overcharging here to subsidize here.
  I agree with my good friend from Iowa, for whom I have great 
affection, that I want to make sure every student has an opportunity to 
go to college and that it is affordable for all. We have a system right 
now where the Federal Government controls 100 percent. When my good 
friend went through college, there were private lenders that competed 
with the Federal Government. At this time we have no private lenders. 
We legislatively eliminated the private sector from competing for 
student loans. It is all dominated by the Federal Government. At least 
we can try to get those loans as inexpensively as we can for the 
largest group of college students.
  I have a unanimous consent request. I hope we will entertain this 
because not only is the debate worthy, but a vote is worthy.
  I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is not invoked on the pending 
motion to proceed to S. 1238, the Jack Reed bill on student loans, it 
then be in order to move to proceed to S. 1241, the Manchin bill on 
student loans; further, that the cloture motion, which will be at the 
desk, be considered filed on the motion to proceed; and further, 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate then immediately proceed to a 
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the pending motion to proceed 
to the Manchin bill, S. 1241.
  Before the Chair rules, let me just say this agreement would allow us 
to have two votes on two versions of student loan rates that start at 
noon today.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, this is an important issue, and I want to 
thank my colleagues who came together this morning to try to find an 
additional solution.
  I thank Senator Manchin, Senator King, and Senator Carper because 
they were willing to try to fix this problem. I am convinced that my 
good friend from Iowa is doing this in good faith, but now is the time 
to find a solution. It is not a year from now, it is not a month from 
now, it is not a week from now, it is today.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I have one question that I would like to ask in the 
spirit of a colloquy to my dear friend from Iowa. They are saying 1 
year, and they are looking at the compromised, bipartisan bill we have 
worked on. In 3 or 4 years the rates may go up because market rates 
will change. If we are only looking at 1 year, is there anything 
prohibitive in our bill that we couldn't go back a year from now if we 
see a better solution? If we get an education bill, we can say: Hey, 
here is the grand bargain, which is better than what we thought we had.
  Still yet, our bill saves $9 billion, and the bill my dear friends in 
my caucus support only saves $2 billion. If we only do it for 1 year, 
we help more people save more money, and then we can still rewrite 
another bill in 1 year. Are we able to do that?
  Mr. BURR. I have learned in my 20 years in Washington that 
``permanent'' is defined as a 2-year session of Congress, and the next 
could easily change it.
  Mr. MANCHIN. If we look at it from year to year, we have 3.4 percent 
for the smallest group, 6.8 percent for everybody above that, and 7.9 
percent for PLUS.
  Under our bill, it is 3.66 percent for all undergraduates, and every 
rate comes down; correct?
  Mr. BURR. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MANCHIN. So that is $9 billion versus $2 billion, and that is 
about as simple as I can make it.
  Mr. BURR. As I said earlier, how does that compute to the average 
student? It means a lower monthly payment. Under the bill that we will 
vote on, which is the current extension--the kick-the-can-down-the-road 
plan--they will pay $78 a month, and that number is based on a student 
borrowing $5,000. Under the bipartisan bill, it is $75 a month.
  On the graduate Stafford comparison by month, the person who borrows 
under the graduate program--under the kick-the-can-down-the-road plan--
is going to pay $251. Under the bipartisan solution, they are going to 
have a monthly obligation of $230.
  For the highest group, the PLUS loans--and in a lot of cases those 
are parents--the monthly obligation is going to be $197 on the kick-
the-can-down-the-road plan, and under the bipartisan solution, the 
monthly obligation is going to be $180 in payments. Again, this is 
figured with $5,000 borrowed over a 10-year amortization of the loan.
  It makes the good point my friend from West Virginia made: Why would 
we not take the opportunity to make

[[Page S5590]]

this cheaper for everybody for the next 12 months? If we find a better 
way to do it, let's change it 12 months from now.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I think what we are talking about also is that they are 
saying if it consolidates, it strings the payment out for the maximum 
of 30 years, which means they are paying a lot more back in interest; 
correct? That is the argument I have heard from different people. So 
that means, why would you have an automatic consolidation?
  With that being said, I understand that with the government-run loan 
right now, there are no penalties for me. If I string it out to get the 
lowest payment for 30 years, and then I said I want to have 10 years, I 
can do that; correct? That is able to be done. So I can reduce that 
amount of time and amount of interest with my affordability to pay 
more.
  Mr. BURR. The Senator is exactly right.
  There are others on the other side who would like to speak.
  Madam Chair, at this time I reserve the remainder of the time on our 
side and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I know Senator Stabenow has an important meeting to get 
to, and I will yield to her in just second.
  I just want to respond to my friend from North Carolina as to why I 
objected since I don't believe in all of these reservations for 
objections. Either you object or you don't, and there is a time to 
explain that later on.
  I wanted to explain why I objected. If we vote for cloture at noon on 
this underlying bill, then what the Senator from North Carolina wants, 
they can add as an amendment. They can offer that as an amendment to 
the bill. The bill will be open to any amendments anybody has.
  So the reason I object is because we have a bill, and it is under 
regular order. We have cloture and the bill is open for amendments. So 
the Senator from North Carolina or Tennessee or West Virginia or 
anybody else can offer any amendments they want, and that is the way 
the regular order ought to proceed.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I think what we are witnessing today 
are people who have differences in philosophies and want to solve 
problems with different approaches.
  I believe the issue before us at noon is a vote on doing no harm. 
There is not an agreement on both sides of the aisle as to whether we 
keep the student interest rates as low as possible for an ongoing basis 
or whether we tie it to market rates going up so that they go up over 
time. There is not agreement on that. I hope we have an agreement to do 
no harm.
  The vote at noon is, let's keep it at 3.4 percent, where it has been, 
which is, by the way, the market rate. Right now you can go out and get 
a car--and I encourage people to purchase a new American-made 
automobile--with a 4-percent interest rate. You can get a mortgage for 
about 4 percent.
  Doubling the rates makes no sense, and putting in place something 
that students are asking us not to do, which starts where we are and 
goes up over time, does not make sense either. So let's do no harm. 
Let's vote yes to give us a year.
  We have people who care about this issue. We can sit down and spend 
that time working under Chairman Harkin, who is committed to addressing 
this in a comprehensive way. He is interested in addressing not just 
the interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans but on all of the 
issues. There is a range of issues, not the least of which is the $1 
trillion that students and families are carrying in this country, which 
is more than the credit card debt that we have.
  Let's start with do no harm. If we do that, then 7 million students 
are not going to be hit with the interest rate hike that is going to be 
in place. If we do that, we are going to be saying to students: We are 
not going to see the government making billions of dollars in profits 
on the backs of students because the loan rates have gone up.
  So I would encourage everyone--people of different philosophies--to 
vote yes to give us the time to work out what is clearly a broad 
comprehensive issue to make sure young people and people going back to 
college have the opportunity to dream big dreams, to have the same 
opportunities many of us have had.
  I went to school on student loans. I went to school on a tuition-and-
fees scholarship because of my own family situation growing up. The 
reality is we have the opportunity to do no harm, and then work 
together on something comprehensive that does not down the road see 
students paying 7, 8, 9 or, in the case of what the House did, top out 
rates at 10.5 percent. I reject that. Colleagues on this side of the 
aisle reject that.
  Let's vote yes and do no harm and then get to work in a bipartisan 
way on the larger problem and solve it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, let me commend Senator Stabenow, Senator 
Harkin, Senator Warren, Senator Franken, and Senator Hagan, 
particularly, who is the cosponsor of the legislation I have proposed.
  My proposal would keep the student loan interest rate for subsidized 
Stafford loans at 3.4 percent while we deal with a very complicated and 
complex set of issues. It is not just the rate structure; it is the 
issue of providing appropriate incentives to control the costs of 
higher education. It is also the issue of refinancing existing debt and 
prospective debt so that this huge wall of debt, the avalanche of debt 
affecting college graduates and professional school graduates today, 
can be addressed. I don't think we can do that--because these are 
complicated programs--off the cuff, as we are attempting to do today or 
as we have been over the last several days.
  It turns out that if we do not extend this rate for at least a year, 
but instead take up the so-called bipartisan proposal eventually rates 
will rise on students across the board. That is because the law now 
calls for a 6.8-percent rate for the Stafford subsidized and 
unsubsidized loans and 7.9 percent for PLUS loans--fixed rates--and in 
order to score this as a zero in terms of the Congressional Budget 
Office and deficit effects, we have to over that time make up all of 
that interest.
  The proponents of the alternate approach are suggesting we will go 
with a lower rate now, but that simply means mathematically we will 
have to have higher rates in the future. The question of when that 
future arrives is a function of the way interest rates will be moving 
in the overall economy, and every indication is those interest rates 
will start rising, and perhaps quickly. The Federal Reserve has already 
indicated they are beginning to pull back on their quantitative easing, 
which means rates are likely to go up. We have seen a significant rise 
in the 10-year T-bill rate. Since May, it has gone up almost a full 
percentage point. So we are in a rising rate environment, and the other 
side proposes moving from a fixed rate to a floating rate, without an 
effective cap.
  What we know is that--it might not be next year or the following year 
but relatively quickly--we could likely see and will likely see 
students paying higher than the 6.8-percent rate and, without a cap, it 
could be significantly higher.
  If we adopt the proposal suggested by my colleagues--and they have 
been working with great energy and great sincerity to try to come to a 
solution--I am afraid we are going to ultimately end up seeing students 
paying much more, and that is not what we should be about.
  We have a situation right now, even with the 3.4-percent rate that 
doubled to 6.8 percent on July 1, where the Federal Government is 
making about $50 billion this year, between the cost of funds and the 
repayments being made by students, so students have become profit 
centers for the Federal Government rather than, as I think the 
intention of the program was, that the Federal program was going to 
help students get through college so they can help us as productive 
workers in our economy.
  It is projected that these Federal student loan programs between now 
and 2023, over a 10-year period, will make $184 billion for the Federal 
Government, in terms of the difference between what students are paying 
back

[[Page S5591]]

and the cost of borrowing from the government. So there is a lot we 
could do--but not in 24 hours--to redesign our program so students are 
not essentially being hammered with huge debts as we are benefiting 
profitably from those students.
  The CBO estimates that under this Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty 
Act, between 2017 and 2023, students would pay an additional $37.8 
billion more on their loans than they would under the current rate of 
6.8 percent. This goes to my initial point. The first few years have 
been designed so interest rates will be lower than 6.8 percent. 
However, according to the CBO, between 2017 and 2023 they will be much 
higher--so if a person is a high school student right now, they are 
looking at paying a lot of money if they intend to go to college--about 
$37.8 billion more--because it all has to balance out to effectively 
generate as much revenue as a 6.8-percent interest rate, which is the 
current rate.
  Students know that. That is why they have come to us and said, 
Listen, thanks, but no thanks. This short-run discount of a few years 
in terms of the interest rate, we know we might get the benefit if we 
have already started or are just finishing college. We definitely know 
that our younger brothers and sisters in high school and another 
generation of Americans will be paying for it.
  So I don't think we should take that approach. I think what we have 
said is let's wait. We have a lot of work to do. We want to look at 
proposals that might actually align the real cost of Federal lending 
for a college education and the real charges we impose on students. 
Right now, my sense is what our colleagues have done in their 
bipartisan approach has been essentially to make sure the first few 
years look good--they are certainly less than 6.8 percent, close to 3.4 
percent--but then they have to put in a rather arbitrary delta--an 
increase in costs--because at the end of the 10-year period they are 
going to have to make up all of the interest that would have been 
charged at 6.8 percent. I don't think that is the way to approach 
fundamental reform of college loans in this country.

  There is another point I think is important to make as well, which is 
we have always either had a fixed rate or an adjustable rate with a cap 
on each loan program--a cap on subsidized Stafford loans, unsubsidized 
Stafford loans, and on PLUS loans for families. Now, in the bipartisan 
proposal, they don't have a cap. There is some discussion that if 
students consolidate loans, they will get an 8.25-percent cap. But 
consolidation can only take place after a student is in repayment. And 
before a student is in repayment, all of that interest on the 
unsubsidized Stafford loans and the PLUS loans is accumulating and 
being capitalized into what the student owes. So when the student 
consolidates, they have a much bigger principal to pay off. There might 
be a cap of 8.25 percent, but it is a much bigger principal. By the 
way, the loan is extended over a longer period of time, so they also 
have to pay for that longer extension of time.
  That is not the cap we have had before in the context of these 
programs. It has been a cap on the individual loan, a cap on the 
subsidized loan and unsubsidized loan, and a cap on the PLUS loans. I 
think that is a major fault within the proposal we are seeing today.
  The other issue, which goes to the index, is that a 10-year T-bill 
interest rate has been chosen. Typically, we have chosen a 91-day T-
bill, and the 91-day T-bill is cheaper, frankly. We start off with a 
much lower index, which lowers what the student has to pay, and then we 
add other costs to it, including the discount estimate of default, and 
all of those things come up with the final rate. But we are going to a 
10-year T-bill rate, which means students will be paying more relative 
to a 91-day T-bill rate. Again, I don't think that is what we want to 
do.
  We want to take the time to try to address this whole set of issues, 
to do it in a thoughtful way, to understand that one of the big 
challenges we have is not just the issue of what rate but also how do 
we keep college costs in check. How do we provide the kind of education 
students need to be competitive in the workplace? How do we deal with 
the interaction between all of these different types of loans? How do 
we go ahead and--again, this might be one of the biggest challenges we 
face going forward--how do we somehow allow these students who are 
drowning in debt to effectively refinance these loans so they can buy 
homes, they can buy cars, they can participate in the economy? That is 
not included in this proposal.
  Indeed, one of my concerns is with these rates locked in--and this is 
long-term legislation--we won't have the proper incentive to 
effectively deal with these issues; we will just let them slide along. 
I think that would be to our great detriment and, more importantly, to 
the detriment of families throughout the country.
  There have been--and appropriately so--comments and criticism of this 
short-term approach. We should have fixed it last year. Well, we 
haven't fixed it, and I think we have to give ourselves the time to fix 
it.
  There is the suggestion that we are dealing with a portion of the 
loans--the subsidized Stafford loans--and everybody else won't get a 
benefit. From the numbers we have seen from CBO, one thing is certain: 
In the last years of the other side's proposal, from at least 2017 to 
2023, everyone--subsidized, unsubsidized, and PLUS loans--will be 
paying more. So the one conclusion we can draw, if we go to the 
alternative approach, is that eventually every borrower will be paying 
more.
  Therefore, I very strongly urge that we move forward with this 
cloture vote to get on to the legislation. As Senator Harkin rightly 
pointed out, once we are on the legislation, it is open to amendment. 
At least we can debate the proposals from all of my colleagues that 
could improve or change or modify the underlying bill. But if we don't 
get to cloture, then we are not moving forward, and I think we should 
at least move forward.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I know we are still on our time; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand Senator Hoeven wanted to take 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to clarify for the esteemed 
Senator from Iowa that I intend to speak in support of the student loan 
certainty act which he may not be in favor of, so I wish to be clear.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes, while 
preserving the 2 minutes remaining for the distinguished Senator from 
North Carolina prior to the vote at noon. I wish to be clear so the 
good Senator from Iowa understands as far as whether he wishes to 
object.
  Mr. BURR. If it influences the Senator from Iowa at all, I will allow 
my 2 minutes to go to him, if the Senator wouldn't object to him having 
3 additional minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. That would be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. My understanding is to preserve the 2 minutes for the 
Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Go ahead.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak to the permanent 
solution that is being put forward on a bipartisan basis today, which 
is the Student Loan Certainty Act. Again, I wish to emphasize that this 
is a bipartisan solution. Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West 
Virginia; Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee; Senator 
Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina; and Senator Angus King, 
an Independent from Maine--I guess tripartisan, right? This is truly a 
bipartisan effort, including the support of Senator Tom Carper, a 
Democrat from Delaware, myself, and others. This is a bipartisan effort 
to come up with a permanent solution.
  I have been listening to the floor debate and what everybody says 
over and over is we need a permanent solution, and that is exactly 
right.
  A year ago I served on the conference committee for MAP 21 which is 
the authorization for the highway program. We included in that 
conference report an extension, a 1-year reauthorization, of the 
Federal student loan program. So we could do what? Put a permanent 
solution in place--not come here a year later and extend it again for a 
year.

  So that is what the vote at noon is all about. It is yet another 1-
year extension. We need to put a permanent

[[Page S5592]]

solution in place. Our bipartisan plan is simple and straightforward. 
It provides students with dependable low-cost financing on a long-term 
basis. We call it the Student Loan Certainty Act because it provides 
just that: certainty for our students and for our families, not another 
1-year extension.
  There has been a lot of discussion here, and it is easy to get 
confused. But let's go through it for a minute. How does it work? This 
is a simple straightforward plan. The plan would tie all student loan 
rates to the 10-year Treasury note to reflect current market and 
employment conditions.
  Right now, that index rate--the 10-year Treasury note rate--is 1.8 
percent. Then both subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans would be 
1.85 percent over that rate. Graduate Stafford loans: 3.4 percent over 
that rate. PLUS loans--loans parents take out--4.4 percent over the 10-
year Treasury note rate. Those rates are then fixed, locked for the 
life of the loan. The student knows that is a fixed rate then for the 
life of the loan, until it is paid off.
  So let's compare the programs, compare the existing student loan 
program to what we are proposing. That is easy enough to do.
  Subsidized Stafford loans. Right now they are actually at 6.8 percent 
because the existing program expired, didn't it. But under the old 
program they were at 3.4 percent for the subsidized Stafford loans. 
Under our proposal: 3.66 percent--3.4 percent; 3.66 percent--so it is 
about the same, isn't it.
  Actually, those rates have gone to 6.8 percent because, again, we go 
year to year. This program expires so we are really bringing them down. 
But even if you assume it has not expired, it is about the same rate--
3.66 percent versus 3.4 percent.
  For unsubsidized Stafford rates, again, under our proposal, you get 
the same rate as for the subsidized student loan program--3.66 percent. 
That compares to 6.8 percent under the existing program. That is a big-
time savings for 60 percent of college borrowers, big-time savings: 
3.66 percent versus 6.8 percent. Which would you rather have? Big-time 
savings for 60 percent of the undergraduate borrowers.
  Graduate student loan rates under our proposal: 5.21 percent versus 
7.9 percent under the existing program; parent PLUS loans: 6.21 percent 
versus 7.9 percent under the existing program--in both cases, again, 
lower rates.
  The consolidated loan rate remains at 8.25 percent. That is a cap. We 
keep that in place--8.25 percent--in essence, providing students and 
families with a cap, another safety feature.
  There is also another protection measure in the bill. The good 
Senator from North Carolina just referred to it a minute ago. Under the 
income-based repayment level provision, student loan payments are 
limited to 15 percent of income. So your repayment, your payment amount 
is limited to 15 percent of your income, and after 25 years, if the 
loan is not paid off, the balance is forgiven. So you have both a cap 
and a repayment limit provision to protect borrowers.
  Furthermore, this program is designed solely for students and their 
families. What do I mean by that? This program is solely for students 
and their families. Unlike the existing student loan program, it does 
not subsidize health care. The current program, in essence, provides a 
subsidy for Federal health care--the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. It 
provides a subsidy, and the students pay for it. Why would we do that? 
Why would we continue that?
  What we are talking about is a vote at noon to extend the current 
plan. It is a 1-year extension, meaning we are going to be right back 
here 1 year from now doing the same thing. Furthermore, it is paid for 
with a tax increase on withdrawals from retirement accounts--a 
permanent tax increase to pay for a 1-year extension. That does not 
make any sense. What are we going to do a year from now to come up with 
the revenue to once again extend it? A permanent tax increase for a 1-
year extension.
  The third point is, why in the world are we using a student loan 
program to subsidize the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare? That does not 
make any sense. Why would we do that?
  Again, I come back to the point I started with, the point I made 
earlier that I think reflects on the debate and the discussion we have 
all had here: There is a desire to come together. I do not think we are 
very far away. I think this bipartisan measure is very close to 
something we can agree on. The good Senator from Iowa said himself he 
wants a permanent plan in place that takes care of students. I think we 
are close to doing that. I think the Student Loan Certainty Act 
provides that bipartisan framework we can now gather around. It may 
need some modification, but we can gather around it and get a permanent 
solution in place. I know that is what all of the Members of this body 
want. I ask my colleagues to join with us so we can get that done, and 
we can get it now--not extend it for a year and hope to get it done. 
Let's get it done for the benefit of our students across this great 
country and their families.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am proud to rise today to support 
the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. This bill would extend the 
current interest rate of 3.4 percent 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; 60 percent of 
dependent subsidized loan borrowers come from families with incomes of 
less than $60,000. Subsidized Stafford loans help more than 7 million 
college students without worrying that the interest on their loans will 
begin accruing while they're in school. It helps more than 105,000 
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.
  I would also like to announce my support for the Bank on Student 
Loans Fairness Act, introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren. This 
legislation would lower the current interest rate of 3.4 percent to 
0.75 percent for subsidized Stafford loans for the next school year, 
which is the same interest rate that banks pay. Banks have arbitrarily 
raised interest rates on consumers, and applied higher interest rates 
retroactively. They charged fees without any legitimate purpose--and 
then charged interest on top those unfair fees. And they marketed their 
products to college students who they knew could not afford the credit 
they were providing.
  The banks are not looking out for the best interest of students; they 
are looking after themselves to make a profit. The Federal Government 
has worked hard to keep student loan interest rates as low as possible 
to ensure that access to higher education remains a viable option for 
students and their families. That is why it is important that we work 
together to keep the interest of students at heart and not create 
additional burdens on them. So why not let students pay the same 
interest rates as banks?
  I have said this often, but we in this country enjoy many freedoms--
the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of 
religion. But there is an implicit freedom our Constitution does not 
lay out in writing, but its promise has excited the passions, hopes, 
and dreams of people in this country since its founding. The freedom to 
take whatever talents God has given you, to fulfill whatever passion is 
in your heart, to learn so you can earn and make a contribution--the 
freedom to achieve.
  When I was a young girl at a Catholic all-girls school, my mom and 
dad made it clear they wanted me to go to college. But, right around 
graduation, my family was going through a rough time because my dad's 
grocery store had suffered a terrible fire. I offered to put off 
college and work at the grocery store until the business got back on 
its feet. My dad said:

       Barb, you have to go. Your mother and I will find a way, 
     because no matter what happens to you, no one can ever take 
     that degree away from you. The best way I can protect you is 
     to make sure you can earn a living all of your life.

  My father gave me the freedom to achieve. And this legislation will 
give millions of Americans that same freedom without adding a dime to 
the deficit.
  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

[[Page S5593]]

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 is not their student debt. Senator Reed's legislation should 
be passed in a swift, expeditious, uncluttered way. 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.
  While our work is not done when it comes to ensuring access to 
affordable higher education, this bill helps us get there. While these 
bills will fix the problem today, I will continue to work with my 
colleagues to figure out a longer-term solution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, Madam President, I think we have had a good debate 
and colloquies on this bill. At noon we are going to be voting, as I 
understand it, on a cloture motion on whether we are going to have a 
bill on the floor. That is all we are saying: Will we have a bill on 
the floor to which amendments can be offered by anybody?
  I say to my friends on the Republican side, if they have an idea--and 
some of them do--that has some Democratic support--and there is some of 
that--the best way to flush this out and to see whether the Senate as a 
whole agrees is to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the 
bill at noon. That means the bill is on the floor. That means it is 
open for amendment. That means if Senator Burr wants to offer an 
amendment that incorporates his whole bill, he can do that and we can 
have a debate on that. And I would say to my friends on the other side, 
it only takes 51 votes, not 60. It only takes 51 votes to adopt an 
amendment.
  It seems to me the proper way, if you want to proceed on this, is to 
vote for cloture. That brings the student loan bill to the floor. If my 
friends from North Dakota or Tennessee or North Carolina or wherever--
or my friend from West Virginia on this side--if they want to offer 
amendments, do so. We can debate it. And then it only takes 51 votes. I 
do not know why they would be opposed to voting for cloture on the 
underlying bill because that moves us to a point where 51 votes is 
controlling. So I hope we will get the 60 votes necessary to move ahead 
with this very important bill and this issue.
  A lot has been said here this morning, and my friend, I think, from 
West Virginia said there are a lot of numbers floating around and there 
are a lot of charts floating around. Everybody has a chart on this and 
numbers on that. No one is trying to befuddle anyone, and no one is 
deliberately trying to mislead anyone. It is just that when you get 
involved in an issue such as this, it is complicated, it is very 
complicated, because if you do a little bit on this one thing--let's 
say on a cap--then it does something on other interest rates. If you do 
something on consolidation, all these things bounce around. You can 
look at what an interest rate would be today, but you do not know what 
it is going to be tomorrow or what it is going to be next year or the 
year after. All we have to go on is CBO estimates, Congressional Budget 
Office estimates.
  I will be forthright. I will say honestly, I can love CBO one day and 
hate them the next because of the way they figure things, and sometimes 
it is almost inscrutable how they figure things. But, nonetheless, 
those are the rules we have to sort of play under here. So we have to 
look at what the CBO scores are and how they score all of the various 
proposals.
  My friend from North Carolina had all of his charts out there and 
different things about interest rates and all that. I asked the 
question: How long does that 3.66 percent interest rate last? He was 
forthright. He said 1 year. But then he went on to talk about what 
would happen in the future.
  Well, here is yet another chart that I present for the Senate. Their 
bill is S. 1241. That is the Burr-Manchin-Alexander et al. bill. So 
what we did was we plotted it out as to what would happen in the 
outyears. As you can see, if you look at this line about right here on 
the chart: 6.8 percent. That is where the student loan interest rate is 
today because on July 1 it doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. And 
6.8 percent is permanent law. Madam President, 6.8 percent is permanent 
law, so that is where it is today.
  If you look at S. 1241, the Burr-Manchin et al. bill, they are quite 
correct that in the first 2 or 3 years the interest rates are lower 
than 6.8 percent. That is why I asked the question. He mentioned 3.66 
percent down here on the chart. That is good for next year. But we can 
only go by CBO estimates, so we asked CBO: What are your projections of 
the 10-year Treasury notes? That is what we have to go by. If you use 
that, and you look at what their bill proposes, you will see almost 
like a classic bait and switch. For the first couple, 3 years, interest 
rates are lower than 6.8 percent. But beginning in 2016--2\1/2\ years 
from now--both the graduate Stafford loans and the PLUS loans go way 
above 6.8 percent--up to 8.6 percent and 9.6 percent.
  If someone looked at that, they would say: Well, for the first 
couple, 3 years that might be OK, but what about these students out 
here? How about these young students getting ready to go to college? 
They and their families are paying these high interest rates. That is 
why we heard from so many student groups saying: That is not a good 
deal. We do not want just a good deal for us for a couple of years and 
then stick the students in the future with higher interest rates.
  Then for the undergraduate Stafford loans--which right now are at 6.8 
percent--the Burr-Manchin and others bill goes up to 7.1 percent. You 
might say that is not much of a difference, but it is more.
  So in every single case, by 2018, the interest rates under the 
Republican bill are higher--higher--than if we stuck with current law, 
which is 6.8 percent. That is a fact. They cannot dispute that unless 
they want to say they do not want to use CBO figures. But that is what 
we have to apply. I have asked--I make the request again--any of the 
supporters of S. 1241, if you disagree with this chart, please come to 
the floor and tell us why this is not right. I challenge anyone to come 
here and tell me why this is wrong, if they think it is wrong, and why 
they think it is wrong. But that is exactly what will happen under 
their bill.
  It seems we have a couple of courses here. As I said, the first thing 
is to do what we can to keep interest rates low, and then to address 
this in a comprehensive fashion.
  The bill before us, the bill we are going to vote cloture on, is just 
a 1-year extension at 3.4 percent. Again, that has a cost. CBO told us 
what the cost was. So we had a pay-for, as we say around here a pay-
for--how do you pay for it--by closing a loophole in the IRAs, the 
individual retirement accounts. As we developed those, those were to be 
used for retirement. But a current loophole in the law allows very 
wealthy people to build up a retirement account in an IRA and use it as 
an estate planning gimmick.
  So millionaires, billionaires can pass on millions in than IRAs to 
their heirs without paying taxes for years, if not decades. That was 
never what IRAs were for. That is a loophole. It has to be closed. I 
think in anything coming before this body in the way of a tax reform, I 
can assure you that loophole will be closed. So we are saying, for 1 
year, we will close it and use the savings from that to keep student 
loans at 3.4 percent for 1 year.
  Am I saying we have to keep student loans at 3.4 percent forever? No, 
I am not. What I am saying is that this whole area of student loans and 
interest rates is one piece of a jigsaw puzzle, the jigsaw puzzle being 
how are we going to do two things; one, make college more affordable in 
the future and how are we going to address the $1 trillion-plus that is 
in student loans out there right now. This is just one part of that.
  When we take one part out of that jigsaw puzzle, it affects 
everything else. That is why I have argued for a long time that our 
committee, the HELP Committee, needs to address this in the Higher 
Education Act reauthorization. The Higher Education Act expires this 
year. So we have to reauthorize it. My good friend Senator Alexander is 
the ranking member on the committee. We have already had discussions 
about the Higher Education Act. I believe this is the proper way to 
proceed, so we can have experts come

[[Page S5594]]

in and tell us: OK. If you jiggle this number a little bit, if you do 
this on student loans, how does that affect Pell grants. If you do 
something on Pell grants, how does that affect college work study.
  All of these things fit together. We need to address a comprehensive 
measure on college affordability, on making sure college costs are 
transparent for our students and their families. Comparisons. Why does 
one course of study at one college cost $200 a credit hour and another 
college the same course costs $400 a credit hour? Why is that? Should 
parents not have a good comparison chart? What can we do to encourage 
colleges to have a better graduation rate in 4 years or 5 years? 
Secretary Duncan has talked a lot about promoting an idea of having 
high schools graduate kids that after 4 years they can get an 
associate's degree. If they study hard and do advanced placement 
courses, they might even graduate from high school or shortly 
thereafter with an associate's degree.
  These are interesting ideas. We need to pursue them. But if we take 
this out, if we take out the student loans, it sort of messes up the 
rest of the formulas. That is why I think we should extend the 3.4 
percent for 1 year, pay for it with the closing that loophole for 1 
year, and let our committee do its job. We have good people on the 
committee. Senator Alexander, Senator Burr are on the committee. We 
have thoughtful, smart people who understand this.
  I think generally we work pretty good together on the committee. This 
issue now of the student loans, it reminds me of all my time in the 
Senate, now marking 39 years. It seems that every time we rush to 
judgment, we have a deadline, that is when mistakes are made. Need I go 
any further than to talk about the sequester?
  It is a horrible mistake. But faced with a deadline, we have to do 
all of this, then we rush to judgment on something such as this. I 
think we made a terrible mistake on that.
  So I plead with my fellow Senators to put this over for 1 year. Let 
our committee do its work, so we can address the whole issue of college 
affordability, college completion rates, and how we address also the 
issue of the $1 trillion that is hanging out there. That may be more of 
an issue for the Finance Committee, but there may be partial 
jurisdiction for both the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee.
  Again, last year, we extended the 3.4 percent for 1 year, to July 1 
of this year. I know I have heard some say we did that for 1 year and 
we did not address the issue. But, again, I remind my fellow Senators 
that last year was an election year, campaigning, we were not here that 
much, had a big election in November, then we had all of these budget 
things facing us at the end of the year.
  With the budget problems we had earlier this year, there just was not 
time to do anything, plus the fact that the Higher Education Act does 
expire this year. So it is incumbent upon us to address the issue of 
higher education. That is where this belongs. I would again hope we 
would extend the 3.4 percent for 1 year and let our committee do its 
work.
  I urge my colleagues to support the 1-year extension. My friends on 
the other side, they say they want a long-term solution. I have no 
problems with that. But let's do a long-term solution based upon a 
rational approach, one that comprehensively looks at all of the issues 
surrounding college affordability. The way to do that, as I said, is 
through the committee's work.
  There was one other point that was made this morning that I wish to 
address myself; that is, consolidation. Everybody thinks consolidation 
is such a hot deal. I have pointed this out before. For example, we 
took a $41,000 Stafford loan borrowed in school--$41,000--and used that 
as the baseline. Then we said, under current law, the student would pay 
$21,716 in interest over 10 years. Under the Republican bill, S. 1241, 
they would pay $28,607. Under consolidation, they pay $69,000.
  So consolidation is not the big deal people think it is. Now here is 
one that is even more drastic. Again, the $41,000 in Stafford loans and 
$30,000 in PLUS loans borrowed by a graduate student, under current 
law, $43,760 is what they would pay back. Under S. 1241, they would pay 
$52,498. But if they consolidated it, they would pay $148,000--$43,000 
to $148,000. That is under consolidation. So you wonder why students do 
not consolidate? Because they realize they are going to be paying back 
three and four times as much in interest charges than if they never 
consolidated.
  The other point I wish to make on consolidation is you only get to do 
it one time--one time. So let's say that you graduate from college. You 
decide I want lower monthly payments. I want to stretch it out for a 
longer period of time. You do that. You consolidate. Then let's say you 
want to go to graduate school. You cannot consolidate after that. That 
is it. You are through.
  So if you have to borrow money at higher rates and stuff, you cannot 
consolidate those later on. I think that is what some of my friends 
forget. You can only use consolidation one time--one time. So 
consolidation and having a cap or whatever it is on consolidation is 
certainly not any kind of an answer to these high interest rate 
payments students are making.
  Again, what we are looking for--I know people want to have a long-
term solution. They want to get to something that is revenue neutral. I 
understand that. I hope if we get cloture and we can move to the bill, 
Republicans can offer their amendments. As I said, it only takes 51 
votes to adopt an amendment. But if not, then let's just extend this 
for 1 year. I do not think that is too much to ask, to extend it for 1 
year and let us do this in a comprehensive fashion.
  I would hope that would be what we would do and not double these 
interest rates on students right now. I think both sides agree on that, 
even under S. 1241, next year interest rates will be 3.66 percent. I am 
all for that. On 1241, they want to keep interest rates at 3.66 percent 
next year. That is fine. That is pretty close to 3.4 percent. The 
problem is what happens in the outyears, as I have pointed out.

  If both sides agree that in the next year interest rates should be 
down around here at 3.6 percent for the undergraduate loans, 3.4 
percent, 3.6 percent, not a heck of a lot of difference. Why do we not 
just extend the 3.4 percent for that year and then fix this in the 
Higher Education Act? I would agree. They want to keep it at 3.66 
percent for 1 year, fine. But there is not that much difference between 
3.4 and 3.66 percent.
  I think what we all agree on is in the next year, interest rates 
should not go up--should not go up. Where we are not agreeing is on a 
long-term fix. Again, if we cannot agree on a long-term fix, then at 
least let's do no harm. Let's extend the 3.4 percent for 1 year and 
take care of the long-term solution in the Higher Education Act 
reauthorization, which we can have on the floor sometime next spring.
  With that, I again ask my colleagues to vote for cloture on the bill. 
Let's extend 3.4 percent for 1 year and let our committee do its work.
  I yield the floor and reserve whatever time we may have remaining.
  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. REED. 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. REED. Madam President, we are about to take this vote. It is 
vitally important. The proposal is very straightforward, to extend the 
interest rate for subsidized Stafford loans at 3.4 percent. It is fully 
paid for. It will allow us to work through a very complicated set of 
issues. It will allow us to avoid raising rates this year and work 
toward a proposal we hope will avoid rising rates in the future.
  The alternative proposal eventually raises rates on every student, 
not immediately, but CBO indicates by at least 2017 the rates will be 
up.
  This is on top of a huge cascade of student debt we have to deal 
with. In fact, one of the major issues we should deal with is how do we 
refinance the existing loans that are at high rates. Refinancing will 
be even more important if we were to enact the rising rates coming from 
the proposals on the other side.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support cloture and move forward to 
debate this bill.

[[Page S5595]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to calendar No. 124, S. 1238, a bill to amend the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the current reduced 
     interest rate for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans 
     for 1 year, to modify required distribution rules for pension 
     plans, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Udall, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Ron Wyden, Benjamin L. Cardin, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Christopher A. Coons, Sherrod Brown, Robert 
           P. Casey, Jr., Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Debbie Stabenow.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1238, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 to extend the current reduced interest rate for undergraduate 
Federal Direct Stafford Loans for 1 year, to modify required 
distribution rules for pension plans, and for other purposes, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted: yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     King
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote the yeas are 51, the 
nays are 49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture 
was not invoked.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is entered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I 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.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. 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. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, last week 40,000 students in 
my State got some very bad news: The rates on new Stafford student 
loans doubled. Today, these students got bad news again. Today, our 
Nation's students once again wait in vain for relief.
  These students work hard; they are ambitious. They know how important 
a college education is. They know what it means to their future and to 
our Nation's future. They expected more of us, and I share their 
disappointment.
  We saw this coming. This bus has been approaching the cliff for a 
year. That ought to be time enough to turn it around, and turn it 
around without throwing students underneath it. I know many of my 
colleagues here are trying--trying to find a long-term solution, but 
today we failed. Our Nation's students pay the cost of that failure.
  For so many in my State, grants and loans make the difference. 
Federal subsidized Stafford loans are absolutely crucial, opening a 
door to college, to opportunity, to investing in the future. We all 
know these students. Most have lower incomes and fewer advantages. We 
ask them to work harder, and now we ask them to pay more.
  They are folks such as Lori Cole. Lori was quoted in the Las Cruces 
Sun News. She said:

       I'm almost 50 years old and returned to school last year. 
     I've had to take out loans on top of my grants. I don't like 
     the rates going up but what can I do? I have a teen in 
     college and a mortgage. I have no choice but to continue with 
     my student loans if I ever want to make more than $10 an 
     hour.

  They are folks such as Josh Dunne. Josh wrote the following on his 
Facebook page:

       As a disabled combat vet, my wife and I who are both 
     students do not have a choice but to eat the increase . . . I 
     don't understand how they can continue to raise the rates on 
     us not only for tuition but now also the loan rate and expect 
     the amount of students to continue to go to school. Hope they 
     can figure it out for our future.

  I say to Josh and to so many other students like him, I hope we can 
figure it out too.
  These students are struggling. Our economy is slowly recovering. Now 
is not the time to set up more barriers. Now is not the time for 
interest rates to double, weighing down students, weighing down hard-
working families, weighing down the middle class.
  The Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013 would have helped, 
keeping the interest rate at 3.4 percent for new Stafford loans for 1 
year and giving Congress time for a broader solution. But the problem 
is not just interest rates, it is the growing burden of student debt.
  Higher education is at a tipping point, and we need a long-term 
plan--a plan that is sustainable, that is comprehensive. These are 
complicated questions that require careful answers. But one principle 
should be clear. For fairness, for investing in our Nation's future, 
college should be within the reach of all American families, not just 
the privileged few.
  Students know how to set goals, they know how to set priorities. They 
expect the same of us. And priorities come down to choices. The Keep 
Student Loans Affordable Act offered a choice--to help students to work 
toward real solutions, and we could do it by simply closing a tax 
loophole. No new tax, no new debt, just closing a tax loophole--not 
exactly a radical notion.
  I will do all I can to ensure the Senate will find its way to long-
term answers. We will not give up on this issue. Seven million students 
and their families are waiting, waiting for predictability, waiting for 
more affordable education, and control of spiraling costs. They and 
their families do the heavy lifting. Every day we should lend them a 
hand.
  The average college senior has over $26,000 in debt at graduation. 
Some have much more. The burden is heavy enough. We should not be 
adding to it now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, this issue is very important to millions of 
Americans, and one with which I am too familiar. I think I have shared 
this in the past, but I will share it again.
  Obviously, my parents didn't make a lot of money. So I would not have 
gone to college, I would not have gone to law school had it not been 
for Federal financial aid, both in the form of Pell grants, loans, and 
work-study. All of these programs opened that door for me. In fact, I 
don't think any of my siblings could have gone to college without some 
assistance.
  The point is that I know how important these programs are to 
Americans. In fact, when I was elected to the Senate in 2010, I still 
had a student loan that was over $100,000. I was fortunate to write a 
book--which is now available in paperback, if anyone is interested--and 
with the proceeds that I made from that, I was able to pay off that 
loan. Had it not been for that, I am not sure when I would have been 
able to pay off my student loan for law school.

[[Page S5596]]

  Early on, when I had multiple student loans from both undergrad and 
law school and the private loans I had to take out for the bar study, 
there were months where my student loan payments were higher than 
anything else I was paying. At its peak, it was about $1,400 a month. 
That is with a graduate and a law degree, and making what most people 
would consider a pretty good living. Even with that, it was a real 
load.
  Obviously, that is at the high end of the spectrum, but even if you 
talk about the average loan debt in America today being around $25,000 
or $26,000, the evidence is clear this is having an impact on 
graduates.
  So you graduate from college, you have the student loan debt around 
your neck, and it actually prevents you from doing things like starting 
your life, buying a home. In some instances, if you fall behind on your 
payments, it starts to hurt your credit rating. The evidence continues 
to grow that a significant percentage of young Americans are facing a 
challenge that no Americans before us have faced with regard to this 
sort of student loan debt that hangs over their heads.
  So, clearly, we have to figure out a permanent solution--not a 1-year 
solution but a long-term solution--on the issue of student loan rates. 
That is an important part of this debate, but here is what I think is 
missing from this debate; that is, an open acknowledgement that what we 
have today in higher education as it is currently structured is 
becoming increasingly and inexplicably unaffordable. And that is the 
part that isn't being discussed.
  The fundamental problem isn't the loans. The fundamental problem is 
the tuition rates that continue to climb across this country. In fact, 
according to the Wall Street Journal today, institutions of higher 
education grew their revenue faster than inflation from 2005 to 2011. 
Of course, the spending also grew. How many other parts of our economy 
grew their revenue and their spending at a pace faster than inflation 
over the last decade?
  The evidence is that every time we increase the amount of student aid 
that is available in both Pell grants and in loan programs, that is 
just eaten up by higher tuition rates.
  Now, as a former State legislator in Florida, that was a battle we 
had every year because the universities said they needed higher tuition 
in order to retain quality faculty, et cetera. To some extent, I 
imagine some of that is true. But at the end of the day, there comes a 
point--especially in our public institutions--where quality but also 
affordability have to meet. We cannot continue to price people out of 
higher education in this country because it is inextricably linked to 
our future well-being.
  There are two fundamental problems that face our economy. No. 1 is we 
don't have an economy that is growing fast enough, producing the kind 
of middle-class jobs that allow people to have the kind of lifestyle 
all Americans want. The other problem is we have a skills gap in 
America where a growing number of people simply have not acquired the 
skills they need for 21st-century middle-class jobs. The only way to 
close that skills gap is through education--and particularly higher 
education.
  What I would argue today is that the model of higher education we 
have in place today, largely based on 19th- and 20th-century models, is 
broken. It no longer lives up to the reality of the 21st century.
  For example, many of the higher paying jobs in the middle class today 
don't require a 4-year degree from a liberal arts college. They require 
less than 2 years or a 2-year degree program that you could get at a 
community college.
  There are other things available to us in terms of how we can 
incentivize or reform our higher education programs. We should look at 
accreditation reform.
  Right now, in order to get student loans or aid from the Federal 
Government, you have to go to an institution that is accredited. 
Traditionally, these are the 4-year or 2-year institutions. But there 
are now alternatives available to us, things that we weren't doing a 
few years ago.
  No. 1, we should rely on community colleges, which, by the way, are a 
treasure in this country. The services that community colleges provide 
students to get 2-year degrees--in fact, some community colleges are in 
the 4-year degree program, and they have tailored programs that allow 
people to go to school while they continue to work. That is an 
important part of the backbone.
  It is also an extraordinary part of retraining people. You might have 
a job, and all of a sudden that job doesn't exist anymore, and you have 
to get retrained in a new skill or a new trade. Community colleges are 
an important part of that component.
  It goes beyond that though. Career and technical education, for the 
life of me, I do not understand why we have stigmatized that in this 
country; why we have created this idea that unless you get a 4-year 
degree or more that you are somehow not successful when we know we have 
a shortage of people we need to be trained in the skills and trades we 
once used to do in this country. We should get back to some of that. We 
should encourage that, quite frankly, even before the college level.
  Why can't we graduate kids from high school with an industry 
certification and a career in a trade, so when they graduate high 
school they get a diploma and they are industry certified to go to 
work?
  We have an example of that on a smaller scale in south Florida, where 
a friend of mine actually takes high school kids and begins to train 
them as BMW technicians. They go to school in the morning for a couple 
of hours. Then they go to the shop and get trained. When they graduate 
from high school, they are BMW-certified technicians. Within a year 
after that, they can get even higher levels of accreditation, and some 
of them start making $35,000, $40,000 a year out of high school.
  Why aren't we doing more of that? Instead, we leave kids trapped. 
They feel as though they are studying things they don't like and don't 
speak to them. They drop out of high school. They languish in the 
economy for 10 or 15 years, and then sometimes they will find 
themselves in a for-profit college or some other program to try to get 
trained.
  Let's avoid all of that. Let's allow these high school students and 
others across this country with an opportunity to study something they 
enjoy and they love and to get the needed skills so they can avoid all 
of that.
  We also have this new revolution in massive online coursework. Now, 
not every course can be taken that way, but we now have the ability to 
allow people to actually have self-directed learning, to use the 
Internet platforms that are available so they can take a course in 
political science from Harvard and economics from Yale. You can sit 
there and actually put your own course work together. This is still 
being developed, but this is an important part of our future 
innovation--the ability to bring the in-classroom learning to the 
student, not just require them to sit there for lectures for an hour 
and a half in a classroom when they can easily get it online and it can 
be tailored to their work schedule, to their workload, to their needs.

  Beyond that, innovations, in terms of giving people credit for work 
experience or life experience--we see that colleges are doing that now 
where you can go in and say: This is what I have done for the last 20 
years of my life, and you get credit for that work because you have 
life experience and work experience in a field. They don't make you sit 
there and spend a bunch of money on electives you are never going to 
use and don't really need because they want you to be ``well rounded'' 
but all it does, in fact, is drive up the cost of your education.
  I don't know about you, but in the last 4 years of my degree I was 
searching for electives to take because I had to have electives. I 
don't remember what some of those electives were, but I paid for them 
with student loans and Pell grants. I would much rather have gotten my 
degree in the things I needed to know so I could have moved on to law 
school and done that there.
  These are some of the ideas we have in terms of how we should 
revolutionize our higher education system to reflect the needs and the 
realities of the 21st century. The fact is that we now have a challenge 
before us unlike anything we have ever had. Industries are now evolving 
on a yearly basis. Most Americans are going to have to

[[Page S5597]]

be retrained at some point in their lives on a new skill because that 
is the pace of change, and we need to have infrastructure in place to 
provide that for people in a way that is affordable.
  It reminds me of a story of a friend I had who was one of the parents 
on one of my son's teams, and the mom was always struggling. She was 
always the first one to get laid off at her office. She worked 
primarily as a receptionist at a dental clinic or medical clinic, got a 
little bit into billing. What she really needs to become and would like 
to become is an ultrasound technician so she can make a little bit more 
money, have a little job security, and provide her kids with the 
opportunities she wants them to have. The problem she has is that she 
has to work 8 hours a day. How is she going to do that and go to school 
and get that training?
  In many parts of this country we do not have the infrastructure in 
place for that to happen and the financial aid programs both on the 
loan side and Pell grant side do not provide the flexibility to allow 
them to do it in the most cost-effective way. To that end I have 
proposed a number of pieces of legislation. Most of them are 
bipartisan. I have worked with Senator Wyden and others on the Student 
Right to Know Before You Go Act. That basically means that before you 
take out these loans, you are going to be provided meaningful 
information: This is how much it is going to cost to go to school here, 
this is how much people who graduate with this degree from this college 
make when they graduate, and this is how much you are going to owe. You 
can still take the course, you can still major in that, but you deserve 
to know. You deserve to know that if you are going to owe $20,000 and 
you are only going to make $20,000 a year when you graduate with this 
degree, it will take you a long time to pay it, if ever.
  Students have a right to know before they go. That is the Student 
Right to Know Before You Go Act.
  I also offered the Higher Education and Skills Obtainment Act, which 
will create one universal tax credit for higher education, and it will 
produce measurable savings, some of which can be redirected to the 
shortfalls in the Pell Grant Program that are coming up. The bill 
offers one tax credit for students who are most in need, giving 
students the ability to avoid navigating a confusing maze of temporary 
tax provisions worth different amounts for different income thresholds.
  By the way, people involved in job skill training would also have 
access to this universal credit as opposed to all these different 
credits floating out there now that people do not fully understand how 
to use.
  There are other ideas I have proposed. I have introduced legislation 
with Senator Coons that provides an innovative partnership that will 
create an interactive source of information for students to be able to 
create college savings accounts. Studies have shown that American 
children with college savings accounts in their name are seven times 
more likely to go to college than students without one. This bill will 
combine innovative student support tools with savings accounts to 
promote access for low-income students in our country so they put some 
money aside to be able to do this.
  The fact is that today's 21st-century student requires a higher 
education system that best suits their needs, whether it is in the form 
of a traditional university, a community college, a career or technical 
education, workforce retraining programs, or a combination of all of 
these.
  I am not saying this is not an important debate to have because it 
is. It is facing people right now. But I hope at some point we will 
look at our student aid programs and what we can do to tailor them to 
the 21st century, to all of the innovations that are now available to 
us to allow people to gain the knowledge they need to become 
competitive in a 21st-century economy. That is going to require, in my 
opinion, a significant restructuring on how our higher education is 
developed.
  This is not a threat to liberal arts colleges or a transitional 4-
year college education. That will always be a part of our system. It is 
an important part of our system. But that does not work for everybody, 
not because they are not smart enough but because they have a job 
during the day, because they are raising three kids. If you are a 
single mom with three kids and a full-time job, you cannot just leave 
all that behind and go to Gainesville, FL, to the University of Florida 
for 4 years. You need the ability to get that degree that allows you to 
do that. I lived that. My sister had to do that. She went back to 
school in her thirties and finished her college degree and then got her 
master's to become a teacher, and today she is an assistant principal, 
all the while raising two boys on her own. She would not have been able 
to do that if the only choice she had available to her was the 
University of Florida, Florida State, because she couldn't just move. 
That doesn't work for someone in that part of their lives.
  We need to have answers. So I hope we will spend some time focusing 
on what we can do and reforming the way we accredit colleges, 
particularly when it comes to student financial aid, and in the way we 
structure our financial aid programs so that the education system meets 
the needs of our 21st-century students and not the other way around.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New 
Hampshire is going to go next. I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 5 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders 
or their designees, that Senators be permitted to speak therein for up 
to 10 minutes each, and that any time in a quorum be equally divided 
between Democrats and Republicans.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  MS. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue we are 
all very concerned about, particularly in my home State of New 
Hampshire; that is, the rising student loan rates. In fact, one study 
that looked at it for the class of 2011 found that for New Hampshire, 
the average load of debt for the class of 2011 was $32,000--over 
$32,000.
  Like the Senator from Florida, I have experienced it personally as 
well. I would not have been able to get a law degree or to have the 
education that I have without the ability to take out student loans--
and only paid them off, fortunately, right as we had our first child. 
So this was something that--basically, I used to call it ``I had a 
mortgage to pay'' to pay off my student loans. But I was grateful for 
the opportunity to get those loans and get the education that I was 
able to receive. We want to make sure all students are able to pursue 
higher education in the most affordable way possible.
  Here is where we are today. This is such a complete, typical 
Washington deal. We just voted on a proposal on the floor, and that 
proposal is a 1-year fix. It only applies to 40 percent of student 
loans. We would be back again next year--like Groundhog Day--trying to 
fix this problem again. It is a complete Washington deal in this way.
  There actually has been a bipartisan proposal that has Members of 
both parties coming together. What happened is we saw that the 
President put forward a proposal as to how to deal with the increase in 
rates on July 1. The House Republicans had a proposal on how to deal 
with those rates. I was with Secretary Duncan at a hearing, and I asked 
him about that, and he said: They are not too far apart. Can't we come 
together? There was an opportunity for compromise.
  As a result, a group of Senators got together here. I commend Senator 
Manchin, Senator Alexander, Senator Burr, Senator Carper, Senator 
Coburn, and Senator King. They sat down and came up with a permanent 
solution to try to make sure student loan rates would not rise from 
where they are right now. This solution, of course, would decrease the 
rates for almost every student and put a cap on consolidated loans and 
also, most importantly, is not a 1-year fix so that we are back here 
again like Groundhog Day putting students and parents in a very 
difficult situation, not knowing how to plan, and educational 
institutions--everyone in the tough situation of not knowing what is 
going to happen and thinking that they are facing a dramatic increase 
in student loan rates.
  I think the American people are very tired of what happens here and 
the

[[Page S5598]]

gamesmanship played in Washington. Here is the unfortunate thing. We 
had the vote on the 1-year fix.
  By the way, I thought the Washington Post addressed that 1-year fix 
very well this morning in its editorial in which it said that lawmakers 
should ``reject this pathetic non-solution and put their efforts 
instead into finalizing a compromise plan.''
  There was a compromise plan that Senators from both sides of the 
aisle have worked on. I am a proud cosponsor of that plan. Yet we are 
not being offered a vote on that plan. That is why I say this is a 
typical Washington deal.
  I can understand why the American people would be so frustrated that 
a bipartisan proposal that would prevent the loan rates from doubling 
would not receive a vote on the floor of the Senate. It is a proposal 
where Senators from both sides of the aisle have tried to take what the 
President wanted and to take what was done by the House Republicans and 
come up with a very reasonable agreement that is a solution that does 
not just leave us here in the same position next year. It doesn't just 
address 40 percent of student loans. It addresses all student loans and 
puts us in a situation where we would have a solution that would be 
bipartisan and would give students certainty. It would make sure their 
rates do not double as they did on July 1. Yet it does not even receive 
a vote on the floor of the Senate. That is what is wrong with 
Washington.
  I hope the majority leader will reconsider. He may not like the 
proposal. I understand. But to not give it a vote on the floor of the 
Senate, where it has bipartisan support, is absolutely wrong. It 
deserves a vote. It deserves a thoughtful vote given that it has 
bipartisan support and it is very close to the proposal that was put 
forward by the President of the United States.
  I hope that we will end the gamesmanship on this important issue, 
that we can address it, that bipartisan proposals like the one I just 
talked about will get a vote on the floor of the Senate, and that we 
will resolve this issue on behalf of students and parents as well, for 
whom I know this is causing a lot of unnecessary consternation. To not 
give a proposal that has bipartisan support a vote, at a minimum, seems 
to me just wrong. It is what is wrong with Washington. I hope the 
majority leader will at least give it the vote it deserves. I hope we 
can come to an agreement on this important issue.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.


                           SH Energy Security

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to speak on the floor of 
the Senate to express my disappointment in last week's district court 
decision on the Cardin-Lugar provision of the SEC rule. An amendment 
offered by Senator Lugar and me on the Dodd-Frank legislation imposed 
certain transparencies on extractive industries. It was a pretty simple 
position. It said that those companies that are registered on the SEC 
that are involved in extraction of minerals would be required to 
disclose on a project-by-project basis the details of those contracts.
  We did that for many reasons. We did it because we thought 
transparency is right. We did it in order to deal with energy security 
so that we know the types of contracts that are being entered into. We 
did it so investors would have information in order to decide whether 
they wanted to invest in the stock.
  The United States has been in the forefront of transparency, and this 
decision will delay implementation of a vital transparency rule that 
will shine much needed sunlight on information designed to protect 
investors and to promote U.S. energy security.
  The Cardin-Lugar amendment and the SEC rule are critical to achieving 
important U.S. policy objectives. These objectives include protecting 
U.S. interests in both national and energy security. Why do I say that? 
Having transparency in what the extractive industries are doing makes 
it more likely we will have stable energy sources globally. Stable 
energy sources are critically important to our national security 
interests. These provisions are important for our national security. It 
also ensures investors awareness and protection. If you are going to 
invest in a stock of an oil company or a mineral company, you have the 
right to know where they are doing business. You have the right to know 
what countries they are doing business in and the specific contracts 
they enter into so you can make the right decision as an investor. That 
is why the SEC rules make sense.

  Lastly, it promotes America's core principles of transparency, 
integrity, and good governance worldwide. It is interesting that we 
sometimes talk about the mineral wealth of a country as being a 
resource curse. Although they have wealth, that wealth is taken by the 
elite of the country and used to finance corruption, which just adds to 
the misery of the people.
  Some of the wealthiest nations that exist as far as minerals are 
concerned have some of the greatest poverty in the world. Well, the 
provision Senator Lugar and I coauthored was an attempt to deal with 
that and an attempt to deal with good governance. If we can trace the 
money, we have a better chance to end corruption, develop good 
governance, and stable regimes.
  The district court's ruling of API v. SEC, which sends the rule back 
to the SEC, is disappointing. The rule is flawed because the court 
completely misread not only the statute but the clear congressional 
desire of the statute. The statute provision was for transparency, and 
yet the court's ruling strikes down the SEC rule which implements that 
transparency. The court spent a tremendous amount of time addressing 
the issue of public disclosure of company reports. The whole purpose of 
section 1504 was to provide transparency to investors and citizens 
about payments made to the government.
  Why would Congress write a law to increase transparency for investors 
and then allow the SEC to keep the reports secret? Congress was clear 
in the letter and the spirit of the law that this information should be 
in the public domain.
  On the issue of the host country exception, over the very lengthy 
comment period for the rule, the SEC was not presented with one 
concrete example from industry about a specific law or contract that 
would prohibit these types of disclosures. In fact, examples are to the 
contrary, including the fact that companies such as Norwegian oil giant 
Statoil regularly report their payments to countries such as Angola and 
China--where industry says prohibitions exist--yet that company had no 
negative repercussions. The API is trying to muddy the waters by having 
the SEC address problems that the industry has failed to prove exists.
  The United States has been a leader on transparency in the extractive 
industries. It is the district court that has now put a hurdle on that 
transparency. The district court's decision is not only contrary to the 
law, it is contrary to what is happening globally today.
  The EU has already enacted a law requiring the same payment 
disclosure that section 1504 requires on a project and company level 
without exceptions.
  In a summit last month, the G8 issued a communique unequivocally 
backing mandatory disclosure. Canada said it will develop mandatory 
disclosures in 2 years. The Canadian mining industry endorsed that 
provision. Despite the oil industry's continued fight in the U.S. 
court, the overwhelming momentum is on the side of mandatory 
disclosure. Why? Because of national security. Why? Because investors 
have a right to know. Why? Because it is the right thing for good 
governance.
  Despite this setback, let me make it clear: We will not give up. This 
law still stands, and the SEC has many options to appeal the decision 
or revise the rule. The SEC must make sure it finishes the job.
  As Senator Levin, Senator Lugar, and I stated in our amicus brief in 
this case:

       Resource companies can believe whatever they wish and make 
     any communication they wish about their payments to foreign 
     governments. ``The resource curse,'' or the benefit or costs 
     of transparency; they have done so throughout this process. 
     What resource companies may not do is impede the power of the 
     legislative branch to require disclosure of objective 
     information to fulfill compelling public policy objectives, 
     including the strengthening of American national and energy 
     security and investor protections.

  That is exactly what that provision did. Congress exercised its 
right, as the

[[Page S5599]]

legislative branch, to require transparency for good public reasons. 
Members of Congress and the administration on a bipartisan basis have 
long supported transparency through comprehensive disclosure of 
payments made by resource companies. That support will continue as we 
work with the SEC to implement this important law.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. 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. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        American Jobs Matter Act

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the American 
Jobs Matter Act. This legislation was introduced by myself, Senator 
Blumenthal, Senator Brown, and Senator Merkley.
  No one is going to disagree that this country has the greatest, most 
powerful military in the world. Although the Defense Department has not 
been spared from the draconian cuts included in the sequester, we still 
have a robust defense budget. Annual defense spending has grown from 
$287 billion in 2001 to over $700 billion today. Today it is hovering 
at around 6 percent of GDP.
  A significant portion of these Federal defense dollars are used to 
purchase manufactured goods that make our military the preeminent 
fighting force in the world. In order to have the best military, you 
need the best people--we certainly have that--and the best stuff, which 
we have as well.
  It is not debatable that our industrial base--going all the way back 
to the iconic assembly lines that churned out the machinery which was 
used to defeat fascism during World War II to today's shipyards that 
are producing our nuclear-powered submarines--is not still the best in 
the world. But 20, 30, or 50 years from now are we still going to be 
the best? That is the question before us today and the question this 
legislation seeks to answer.
  Over the past 5 years the Department of Defense has cumulatively 
spent about $700 billion on manufactured goods. Over that same period 
of time, the United States has lost 1.7 million manufacturing jobs.
  Why is this? Obviously, there is no single answer to this question, 
but it is telling that during this period of time DOD has spent $124 
billion purchasing goods from foreign manufacturers. Some of these 
foreign manufacturers are in countries that are our allies today and 
will always be our allies, but some of these foreign manufacturers come 
from countries that are not our allies today and will never be our 
allies.
  The bottom line is that when we outsource defense-manufacturing 
capabilities--either to our allies or to our adversaries--manufacturers 
shut down in this country and our capability to create and make 
critical defense items for our soldiers vanishes. The erosion of our 
industrial base kills jobs, and it jeopardizes our national security.
  There are countless examples of how these spending decisions harm our 
industrial base, but I will give two examples that affect my home State 
of Connecticut.
  In Waterbury, CT, there is a company that makes the metal tubing 
which goes into every ship the Navy builds. It holds the wires and the 
conduits. It is an incredibly complicated product, such that there are 
only two or three companies in the world that make this. For over 150 
years this company in Waterbury, CT, has employed people in my State 
and kept our Navy equipped with the tubing it needs.
  Over the years, the Navy has started to favor a foreign competitor 
who, frankly, has a history of engaging in unfair trade practices in 
order to undermine its competitors. They are offering the Navy a 
slightly more discounted price than the American company. So from the 
Navy's perspective, it is tempting to award that bid to an overseas 
contractor, but the monetary costs to the Navy cannot be the only thing 
we look at.
  First of all, if this company in Waterbury goes under, then we will 
forever lose the ability to make this critical defense item in the 
United States. The country from which we are buying this equipment 
might be our ally today, but who knows what the case will be 10 or 20 
years down the line. The fact is, you cannot just recreate the 
expertise, personnel, and machinery that makes this specific type of 
metal tubing.
  Second, even if the Navy gets a 5- or 10- or 15-percent discount on 
this particular item, that benefit to the Navy essentially disappears 
when you look at the overall cost to the U.S. taxpayer because when 
those jobs are lost in Waterbury, CT, those men and women start 
qualifying for Federal benefits such as unemployment and Medicaid. We 
lose the tax revenue that comes to the local government, the State 
government, and the Federal Government. And, all of a sudden, that 
small discount they get by going to a foreign manufacturer vanishes 
before their eyes.

  Here is a second example and one that to a lot of Americans will be 
absolutely maddening. We have a machine that makes dog tags. 
Essentially, we have a machine that goes out into the field and makes 
them for soldiers. There is nothing more iconic and emblematic of the 
danger soldiers put themselves in, the sacrifice they sometimes make, 
than the dog tag. It has historically been made by an American-built 
machine. But, recently, bids have been going to an Italian company that 
makes a similar machine simply because the Italian company's machine 
costs 3 percent less than the American machine.
  First of all, it is not acceptable that our dog tags are not American 
made. Second of all, that 3-percent difference is negligible when we 
compare it to all of the money lost when those jobs disappear in the 
United States. How can this happen?
  There was overwhelming bipartisan consensus when Congress passed 
something called the Buy American Act 75 years ago, which said we 
should give preference to companies in the United States when we are 
buying things for the U.S. military. I don't think anybody today 
questions the wisdom of that act. But over the years we have built 
loophole after loophole, exception after exception, into the Buy 
American Act such that sometimes a minority of the parts of a 
particular thing we are buying for the Department of Defense comes from 
American firms.
  The real world examples I mentioned and many others have prompted me, 
along with Senators Merkley and Brown and Blumenthal, to introduce the 
American Jobs Matter Act. Here is what this legislation will do; it is 
pretty simple: It will require that the Department of Defense, for the 
first time, has to measure domestic employment as a factor in awarding 
a contract. It is a simple premise. In the same way that DOD considers 
price and past performance when awarding work, they should also 
consider the impact on domestic employment in the award of a contract.
  Under this bill, our largest contractors would also have to account 
for the expected job creation of their subcontractors, because that is 
where a lot of the problem is. We are not buying a lot of big goods 
that are assembled in other countries, but the hundreds of thousands of 
parts that sometimes go into a submarine or a jet engine or a tank or a 
humvee are often made outside of the United States. This would require 
the contractor to present an estimate of how many jobs throughout the 
supply chain are created here in the United States. Under this bill, 
when DOD gets two similar bids and one would create more American jobs 
than the other bid would, DOD can take that into account when awarding 
the contract.
  Frankly, most people I talk to back in my home State of Connecticut 
think this already happens. People assume that if past performance and 
price are about equal, the home team should win. But, today, there is 
no law that allows military contractors to make that distinction. This 
bill would allow them, for the first time, to do that.
  Retired U.S. Army BG John Adams recently published a study about the 
vulnerabilities in our defense supply chain. His report, which 
mentioned actually some of the specific examples I referenced, said 
this:

       The health of our manufacturing sector is inextricably 
     intertwined with our national

[[Page S5600]]

     security, and that the United States' national security is 
     threatened by our military's growing and dangerous reliance 
     on foreign nations for the raw materials, parts, and finished 
     products needed to defend the American people.

  It is time we changed that. The American Jobs Matter Act will put our 
defense industrial base on a stronger footing for the future.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. 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. ENZI. Madam President, I wish to make some comments about the 
vote we had on the floor awhile ago. I think it is time to stop holding 
the students of this country hostage 1 year at a time. That is what the 
bill did that just got turned down for cloture. It kicked the can down 
the road for a year. There were several Democrats who voted with the 
Republicans on that one, because they thought it is time to stop 
kicking the can down the road.
  How do we stop kicking the can down the road? Take a look at the 
Republican alternative that was offered. The Democratic bill was going 
to save 40 percent of the students half of the interest rate for 1 year 
so that 3.44 percent would be their interest rate. The Republican plan 
solves it for all students getting a loan and it solves it in 
perpetuity. It does it by making it 3 percent greater than what the 
Federal Government borrows its money at, which at the present time is 
3.66 percent. I submit 3.66 percent is not much higher than 3.44 
percent and it is a lot less than 6.88 percent.
  Why do we have a rise in the interest rate to 6.88 percent? The 
Federal Government, this body and the other body, and the President, 
decided a way we could fund health care in this country would be to 
take over the student loan business and then raise the rates to 6.88 
percent. It provides money for the Affordable Care Act.
  So we had a vote without having a side-by-side. Nobody got to vote on 
the 3.66-percent interest rate for everybody in perpetuity, but we got 
to vote for the 3.44-percent interest rate, which means kicking the can 
down the road for a year for 40 percent of the students. That is wrong.
  Why didn't we get to vote on both of them? Well, the Republican plan 
would have had more votes than the Democratic plan. There are people on 
the other side who don't want to kick the can down the road and who 
understand the alternative is a reasonable solution to the problem. It 
would take care of all the students and take care of them from now on, 
and it provides a solution to the problem.
  I have to say it is pretty clever, that by bringing up this bill by 
itself and having it defeated on cloture, it solves two problems: No. 
1, they get to blame the Republicans. No. 2, the money will still be 
there for the Affordable Care Act. That means keeping the money and 
blaming the Republicans. How can it get better than that? It can get 
better than that if we solve the problem for all of the kids applying 
for loans this year, not just 40 percent of them, and solve it so they 
know exactly where the interest rate is going to be at the time they 
apply and it stays that way on their loan for the whole time they have 
the loan.
  In future years, as others apply, the interest rate may be higher. 
The rate will be the same as whatever rate the Federal Government pays 
to borrow money. We are not going to be able to borrow at the low rates 
we are borrowing at now, but students will get the same break everybody 
else does, at just the 3-percent higher interest rate.
  I notice the majority leader changed his vote to no, and that is so 
he can bring up this bill again. Why would we bring up this bill again 
without having the alternative bill so people can vote for it, which I 
think might pass? It is so we can be blamed one more time.
  This isn't supposed to be a blame game around here. This is supposed 
to be about finding common ground and getting things done. I think 
there is some common ground; otherwise, there wouldn't be some 
Democrats joining with Republicans on a bill Republicans proposed, but 
that is not the way we need to do bills anyway. We need to have the 
chairman and the ranking member of the appropriate committee sit down 
and work out a basic bill that can then be amended on the floor--first 
amended in committee. We are not going through a regular process on a 
lot of these bills and yet we should be. I assume it would go to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Maybe, since it 
deals with the health care act, it would go to the Committee on 
Finance. At any rate, there would be an appropriate committee for it to 
go to, perhaps both the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee, but 
it didn't come to either. Neither proposal came to that committee.
  It is time to quit making deals around here and start legislating. 
That is the way things have been done in America for a couple of 
hundred years and it is time we did that again. We can get solutions if 
we go through the regular process.
  It is time to stop kicking the can down the road. I hope we can reach 
a solution. I hope we get to vote on both proposals and we can see 
where a majority of the votes go. Slowly, people are coming to realize 
that a solution for 100 percent of the students taking out loans is 
better than a solution for 40 percent of the students taking out loans, 
and one that goes on in perpetuity is better than one that goes on for 
1 year.
  Every year in July we say to the students, Your interest rate is 
going to go up unless we take action, and then we show how one side or 
the other doesn't want to take the action.
  We have to get this problem solved. There are a lot of other aspects 
of higher education that need to be solved as well. It is time for that 
bill to be reauthorized, and it should go through the regular process 
as well.
  I hope we quit blaming each other and get something done. I 
personally like the long-term solution for 100 percent of the students 
instead of half of a solution for 40 percent of the students.
  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. COONS. 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. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Employment Agenda

  Mr. COONS. I rise today to talk about something we do not hear enough 
about on the Senate floor these days: Jobs, jobs, jobs. During the 2012 
election, the monthly jobs numbers were even more closely watched and 
analyzed than the daily polls, but ever since it is as if Congress has 
forgotten there are still 12 million Americans looking for work, and 
from my home State of Delaware alone, 32,000 Delawareans are out of a 
job.
  Sure, we are eager to hear if the unemployed numbers nudged up or 
down a tenth of a percent. But maybe Washington is all too willing to 
put the unemployed on the back burner. We are adding nearly 200,000 
jobs a month now, according to the most recent jobs report. That is 
certainly progress. But one of the things I found most chilling was an 
analysis that said at this pace, it will be 2017 before our Nation gets 
close to full employment again.
  Is that acceptable to the Presiding Officer? That is certainly not 
acceptable to me. When is Washington, when is Congress, going to get 
back to working on behalf of those still looking for work?
  The jobs numbers that are typically reported mask an even deeper and 
more concerning structural problem in our economy as well. Almost 40 
percent of those currently unemployed, about 4.3 million Americans, are 
described as the long-term unemployed. These are folks who have been 
out of work 6 months or more. Short-term unemployment has dropped, but 
long-term unemployment remains persistently high and troubling. The 
longer a worker is unemployed, the more difficult it becomes to

[[Page S5601]]

find a job, whether it is because there is a stigma attached to being 
unemployed or because their skills need to be updated or because we 
need something to help lift their spirits and make them successful in 
job interviews.
  Across all of these different reasons, in my view we need stronger, 
more engaged, more agile interventions by the Federal Government, by 
State and local governments, in our economy and in support for those 
seeking work to help them find employment.
  I think we need to act swiftly on measures to improve skills 
training, job placement, and collaboration with State and local labor 
agencies. The fact is the longer we wait to deal with long-term 
employment, the tougher it will be to help these folks get back to 
work. Yet many of us here in Congress apparently cannot or will not 
focus on unemployment, long term or short term, much less on other 
measures to stimulate our economy. Is it any wonder the American people 
think Congress is not even trying anymore?
  Here in the Senate, we know that while deeply challenged by 
filibusters and ideological fights and caucus politics, we are still 
managing to get big things done. It would be an overstatement to say we 
are making it all work, that it is easy. But thanks to a contingent of 
Republicans and Democrats here who are working in good faith together, 
we have been able to make some meaningful bipartisan progress. The 
Senate passed a bipartisan farm bill that would have taken steps to 
modernize our Nation's agricultural system, which supports 16 million 
jobs, and actually reduce the deficit by $24 billion.
  What a remarkable trifecta of accomplishments: supporting one of the 
world's most cutting-edge agricultural economies, supporting 
significant job creation, and significantly cutting our deficit. What 
is not to love in that farm bill? Well, the House passed a series of 
amendments that eliminated our hard-fought bipartisan compromises and 
has effectively doomed the bill.
  Similarly, the Senate here passed a bipartisan Water Resources 
Development Act to modernize America's water infrastructure all over 
the country, including drinking water, wastewater treatment, shipping 
channels. It got 83 votes here out of 100 in the Senate. It is being 
slow-walked in the House over ideological objections about the 
empowerment of the government on environmental authority.
  After a historic committee markup, after the Congressional Budget 
Office said it would reduce the deficit by $150 billion in the first 
decade and $700 billion the second, this Senate passed an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan immigration reform bill--I think one of the 
biggest accomplishments of this Congress. This Senate passed an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan immigration reform bill, only for it to 
languish stubbornly in the partisan hunger games that are today's House 
of Representatives. The headline in Politico from today reads 
``Immigration Reform Heads For Slow Death.''
  Americans are frustrated with this, and so am I.
  The House of Representatives has sadly become wholly dysfunctional, 
paralyzed by partisan civil war over the fundamental question of 
whether government should be an instrument of good in people's lives. 
That is the key here. Sadly, the fighting within the Republican Party 
is dividing that caucus internally. On the one hand you have genuinely 
principled Republican lawmakers who believe in this legislative 
process, who are committed to working collaboratively on the challenges 
our Nation faces. These folks have worked with me and others and 
cosponsored many bills I have introduced and others to try to make a 
difference here. On the other hand you have an antigovernment, frankly 
anti-Obama faction that took over the House in 2010. Their numbers are 
small but their voices are loud. It is their core belief that Congress 
and the Federal Government cannot and should not legislate, that 
government has no meaningful or constructive role to play in our 
society.
  I worry that that belief informs their tactics of stall and delay, 
investigate and repeal. The Huffington Post reported this week that 
this Congress, in particular this House, has had only 15 bills signed 
into law so far--15. You have to go back a long time to find a Congress 
that has passed fewer pieces of legislation, between House and Senate, 
than this one, the 113th Congress.
  Democrats and many Republican lawmakers look at this as an 
embarrassment in a time of enormous challenges overseas and at home for 
us to take so few actions together. But the tea party and some 
conservative ideologues look at it as an accomplishment and say that 
any compromise is a four-letter word, especially if the alternative is 
broad or progressive legislation. So what we have is a fight between 
folks who would, for example, trim the scope of funding for the Federal 
Department of Education, and folks who would fundamentally think there 
should not be a Department of Education. That is a fight in which I 
think the American people do not win.

  An opposition party is a great thing, a necessary thing for our 
democracy. But this opposition party within the opposition party is 
crippling this Senate, this House, this Congress. By my count it has 
been 90 weeks since a Republican filibuster blocked a jobs bill that 
was designed to keep teachers, police officers, and first responders on 
the job. It has been 87 weeks since a filibuster blocked a bill to put 
Americans to work through investments in infrastructure, and 51 weeks 
since a Republican filibuster blocked a bill to give tax breaks that 
bring jobs home and end a tax deduction for companies that move jobs 
overseas. Frankly, just 42 weeks ago, a Republican filibuster in this 
Chamber blocked a bill to help 20,000 veterans find new jobs.
  In the other Chamber, it is no better. The House of Representatives 
has now voted 37 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The New York 
Times did the math. The House has spent 15 percent of its time voting 
to repeal the so-called ObamaCare. In May, the Congressional Budget 
Office, which is the arbiter of what is or what is not necessary, the 
scorekeeper, actually said the House has voted to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act so many times it will no longer issue new scores as it 
attempts over and over to achieve what seems to be its most basic 
purpose: repeal. That is how much time and energy this House has wasted 
on this particular project, that could be better invested in finding 
ways to implement this bill more responsibly.
  How much time do we waste here in this Chamber, running out the 
clock, waiting for 30 hours for cloture to ripen, because we cannot get 
simple agreements to move forward? I know this is not what our side or 
our leadership wants. I suspect it is not what most Senators of either 
party want. It is certainly not what our constituents want. What should 
be taking days is taking weeks. What should take weeks is taking months 
or even years.
  We are not here to run out the clock. We are here to make a 
difference, or at least that is why our constituents sent us here. 
Ideological obstruction has rendered this Washington, this Congress, so 
ineffective, so inert, that when it comes to helping people get back to 
work in Delaware, my colleagues Senator Carper and Congressman Carney 
and I have taken an unusual action for Members of Congress. We have 
started hosting job fairs. We have used the power of the office to 
convene when we cannot use the power of the office to legislate. We 
have had actually 13 job fairs up and down our State in all three of 
our counties in Delaware. We have watched as hundreds of folks have 
come and had the opportunity to apply for and pursue new employment.
  Congress should be taking a clue from that effort. We should recommit 
ourselves to helping our innovative small businesses grow, to helping 
open new markets for American goods, to helping Americans find good 
jobs, and to supporting those who have not been quite so lucky yet.
  I think we need an agenda, an agenda that focuses on five areas where 
investment now will lead to new jobs, not just for today or tomorrow 
but long into the future. First should be education. We have to do 
more, as I said before, to help the long-term unemployed get 
professional skills to thrive in this job market. We have to do more to 
prepare young people for the challenges of the modern economy.
  I have a bill, the American Dream Accounts Act, cosponsored by 
Senator

[[Page S5602]]

Rubio and others, that would help get our at-risk kids through school 
and into college.
  We should also support innovative cutting-edge research. I have a 
bill that would make the R&D tax credit permanent and open it to 
startups. It is called the Startup Innovation Credit Act, which has 
been cosponsored by a wide range of Senators: Enzi and Rubio, Blunt and 
Moran, Stabenow, Kaine and Schumer, a truly bipartisan bill.
  I am proud to be working with Senator Alexander of Tennessee on, 
hopefully, strengthening and reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act.
  The third area we should be focusing on is tied to us doing more to 
harness the resurgence of American manufacturing. There are a dozen 
smart bills--many with bipartisan support--that have been introduced, 
taken up, and passed in the Senate that are currently languishing in 
the House. We should work to make a real difference for America's 
manufacturers.
  Fourth, we have to help grow our economy by growing our markets, by 
growing our opportunities around the world. As chairman of the African 
Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have 
worked across the aisle to push forward bills that would create new 
market opportunities for American businesses.
  With Senators Durbin and Boozman, I have reintroduced a bill which 
aims to triple the amount of U.S. exports to Africa over the next 10 
years.
  Fifth and last, an area on which I thought all of us would be able to 
come together, is investing in infrastructure. The BUILD Act, 
introduced and taken up in the last Congress--which I hope we will soon 
move to--would create a national infrastructure financing vehicle, an 
infrastructure bank, if you would, to help bring private funds into 
vital infrastructure projects. It has had bipartisan support in the 
past from the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO.
  It is my wish we can take it and use it as a vehicle to help the 12 
million people who are looking for work find the jobs they need.
  I have a simple question: When is Washington, when is Congress going 
to get back to work on behalf of those still looking for jobs? How much 
longer will we wait? How much more clock will we run out? How much more 
time will we waste?
  It is my prayer that this Chamber, this country, finds a way to work 
together to get over this partisanship that has paralyzed our political 
process.
  In closing, I wish to say a word of thanks to colleagues I have seen 
who have come to join me in the Chamber, Senator McCain and Senator 
Flake of Arizona. They are exemplars of the folks who have worked 
together across the aisle to find solutions to some of the big problems 
facing us.
  They worked tirelessly with Democratic colleagues to put together the 
architecture of the bipartisan immigration bill that was passed through 
this Chamber in recent weeks. It is my hope that others in the other 
Chamber will see that spirit and take this opportunity to take up and 
pass legislation to put America on a track toward growth. There are 12 
million reasons for us to do that, 12 million Americans looking for 
help getting back to work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________