[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6101-6115]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to express deep disappointment in 
the vote that just took place a few hours ago where our Republican 
colleagues voted to filibuster our efforts to make sure student loans 
in this country do not double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in July.
  I think everybody understands that young people in our country today, 
in the midst of this terrible recession, are facing extraordinary 
challenges. They are paying three to four times as much as their 
parents paid for a college education regardless of whether they attend 
a private or public college. When they receive their diplomas, they 
have no guarantee, given the state of the economy today, that they are 
going to be able to get a job and earn the income to pay off those 
debts.
  Given the challenges college students are facing today, the least we 
can do is to keep student loan interest rates at a low rate for another 
year. The interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans has been steadily 
reduced since Congress passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act 
of 2007. But if Congress does nothing, interest rates on subsidized 
Stafford loans are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on 
July 1, 2012.
  When we talk about Stafford loans, we are talking about loans for 
students from low- and moderate-income backgrounds. Subsidized Stafford 
loans are need based and targeted to students who otherwise might not 
be able to attend college. Nearly one-third of undergraduates have 
benefited from these low-interest Federal loans. If the interest rate 
doubles this year, the rate hike will impact up to 9 million students, 
and we must not allow that to happen.
  Among the students who will be impacted are 19,000 young people from 
the State of Vermont. In my State nearly 70 percent of college 
graduates are carrying student loan debt--70 percent. On average that 
debt is $30,000, which puts Vermont at the sixth highest student loan 
debt load in the country.
  Everybody understands that in order to get ahead in the economy 
today, it is very important that one has a college degree. The cost of 
college education is soaring. In the State of Vermont--and I have 
talked to many of these young people in my State and throughout this 
country--students are leaving college deeply in debt. Nineteen thousand 
students in the State of Vermont are on Stafford loans. If interest 
rates double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent, it will make their current 
situations, which are very difficult, much worse.
  So I hope our Republican colleagues will end their filibuster. I hope 
we can get back to work as soon as possible in passing a bill which 
will maintain Stafford loan rates at 3.4 percent.
  With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the time from 2:15 until 
5:15 be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees and that all quorum calls during that period also be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before I speak about the details of the 
impact of not helping students in this difficult economic climate with 
student loans that they can afford, I wish to say that I was stunned 
that my Republican friends refused to give us a vote to proceed to the 
issue.
  I think every student in America should turn their focus on this 
Chamber because the Republican Party made it impossible for us to lower 
the student loan rates today. They made it impossible. This is going to 
mean thousands of dollars over the life of a student's loans. So while 
the Republicans are calling for major tax cuts for billionaires and 
millionaires of $100,000, $200,000 a year in cuts, they don't have the 
heart to help middle-class students get a break on their interest rates 
for higher education. I find it appalling.
  If anyone wants to know the difference between the parties, start 
with this. Whom do we fight for when we are here? We all say we are for 
the next generation. We all have the speeches--oh, they are terrific; 
they are beautiful--each party. But when push comes to shove, who is 
voting to help our students get an interest rate they can afford so 
they are not shackled to a high interest rate at a time of historic low 
interest rates? Democrats are on their side. All we have to do is look 
at the vote today if nothing else. One does not have to understand any 
more than the Republicans blocked us from debating the importance of 
lowering interest on student loans.
  So I will be back to put in the record individual stories from my 
constituents. But let's wake up, America. Parents, wake up. Students, 
wake up. The Democrats proved today that we are on your side. The 
Republicans proved they are not. Period. That vote says it all. It is 
not complicated. They will make it complicated. They will talk about 
procedure and this and that. The bottom line is the bottom line. The 
Republicans voted not to allow us to vote on ways and methods to lower 
interest rates for our students. So don't be fooled. We will hear 
speeches on why they voted no, and they will come up with things. The 
bottom line is they wouldn't even let us debate this issue. I am 
stunned. I assumed we would be on this bill.
  So when Americans look at the Senate floor and don't see much 
activity except for a few of us coming to speak, and they thought today 
was the day we were going to vote to lower interest rates on student 
loans, wake up to reality. It is called a filibuster. We were stopped 
by the Republicans once again, just as they have stopped us time and 
time again. They come to the floor with every reason one can imagine.
  We have news. We have two independent scholars who wrote a very 
important paper. They are nonpartisan. What they said in this paper is 
that they used to think it was both sides that were stopping progress. 
Now we

[[Page 6102]]

know it is one side. It is the Republican side. Today is yet another 
example. I hope everyone within the sound of my voice--and we will hear 
stories about what is happening, and I hope people will write us all 
and e-mail us with their stories and tell us what it means to them to 
have to spend thousands more unnecessarily on student loans. Give us 
the stories. Let us tell the stories.
  I hope Americans will send us those stories, and I hope we will send 
a message to those who voted to filibuster this very important 
legislation today that they are not on the side of the American people. 
They are not on the side of working families. They are not on the side 
of the middle class. They are not on the side of economic progress. 
They are not on the side of economic growth.
  I thank the President for the time, and I yield the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Wow. That was interesting. I remember 
when the Senator who just spoke before me, before we left for our 
district work period, was praising the Republicans for working with 
her--one Republican specifically--and about how appreciative she was 
for working together and taking the time in a bipartisan manner to move 
forward on a very important piece of legislation that she was 
spearheading. We didn't filibuster that. We didn't filibuster the 
postal bill or the Violence Against Women Act or the crowdfunding bill 
or the insider trading bill. But all of a sudden we are filibustering 
now.
  The bottom line is we want to have the opportunity to have an 
alternative proposal and to have a full and fair debate. I think the 
American people are smart. I know the American people are smarter than 
that.
  I stand before my colleagues today to reference that most students 
and parents know in July the fixed interest rates on subsidized 
government student loans are set to double. That was very eloquently 
pointed out just now. But let's be clear. The vast majority of the 
Members of this body want to prevent that from happening. I think that 
is a no-brainer.
  Unfortunately, today we voted on a bill that is not bipartisan. It is 
very clear it is not bipartisan to raise taxes on subchapter S 
corporations, which are the people who are doing some of the very 
serious job creation in this country. It is not going to pass the 
House, and it is not going to pass muster with the American people. It 
was not negotiated in good faith, and it has no chance of passing in 
the House of Representatives, as I said.
  Once again, we are preparing for an unnecessary political battle. 
That is kind of what happens. We have a rough spot with a political 
battle, then we do two or three things that are good. Then we get stuck 
again, and then we do two or three things that are really good. It is 
unnecessary. We need to work in good faith and negotiate a compromise 
instead.
  A 100-percent Democratic bill isn't going to pass, I say to my 
colleagues. A 100-percent Republican bill isn't going to pass. It needs 
to be a bipartisan, bicameral bill that the President will sign. That 
is how we passed some of the most important pieces of legislation 
dealing with ethics on the insider trading bill that I was proud to 
sponsor with Senator Gillibrand in a bipartisan manner. We got it 
through and out of this Chamber and passed and signed by the President 
in record time.
  We just passed the postal bill, the Violence Against Women Act, the 
crowdfunding, the jobs package. We need to work in the same manner on 
this matter.
  With so many recent graduates unemployed or underemployed, Members of 
Congress need to work together to keep the interest rates where they 
are currently. Rather than wasting time trying to blame the other side, 
let's try to build some bridges as we did before we left--or I thought 
we had done. I was looking forward to coming back after the week off 
and getting right back at it and working on important things such as 
cybersecurity and the student loan issue.
  So let's allow people of good faith to figure out how to solve these 
very real problems. That is why today, as I have referenced to many of 
my colleagues in our weekly caucuses and through e-mail, I am offering 
a bill that would extend the 3.4-percent rate for another year, without 
raising taxes, as is being proposed, or cutting sacred programs, which 
is also being proposed.
  My bill, the Subsidized Stafford Loan Reduced Interest Rate Extension 
Act, would extend the subsidized rate for a year. To pay for it, I 
suggest using a noncontroversial option: reducing Federal improper 
payments.
  We have all heard about the amazing amount of waste that goes on just 
by paying people who are dead who should not be getting their payments 
and also paying other entities that have either already been paid or 
are being improperly paid. It is millions and--sorry, billions and 
billions of dollars.
  The bill establishes a governmentwide ``Do Not Pay List,'' and 
requires new audit pilot programs across Federal agencies to provide 
more tools to battle back and make sure we can recapture those moneys.
  Let me give a few examples of the improper payments so the folks up 
there in the gallery listening and those who are watching on TV can 
kind of reference it. These are payments I hear about working as the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management--a 
committee where Senator Carper and I have been diligently working in a 
bipartisan manner, once again, to try to solve problems.
  Medicaid, which is the primary source of health coverage for over 50 
million Americans, made an estimated $21.9 billion of our tax dollars 
in improper payments in 2011. The Federal-State Unemployment Insurance 
programs made an estimated $13.7 billion in improper payments in 2011.
  SSI made an estimated $4.6 billion in improper payments in 2011.
  I think, if I am not mistaken, we are looking for $6 billion to pay 
for this student loan extension. I just referenced almost $38 billion, 
$39 billion. We need $6 billion. That is it.
  We spend over $1 billion in payments that are sent to dead people, as 
I said. Mr. President, $1 billion we pay. Can you believe that? We pay 
$1 billion to people who are dead. There are billions in payments that 
are sent to the wrong recipient, billions in incorrect amounts sent to 
the right recipients, and billions in payments where documentation is 
missing and where the recipient is not using the funds for the intended 
purpose.
  All we have to do is be marginally successful--just marginally 
successful--to recover the $6 billion we need to pay for this very 
important student loan program. When government is so wasteful, raising 
taxes should not always be the first thing we look at.
  How about reestablishing the trust with the American taxpayers--the 
people who are listening in the gallery and on TV. Why is it every 
single time we are going to raise taxes on one particular group or 
another? This time we are going after the small business owners, the 
subchapter S corporation owners.
  I am not saying my bill is the only answer. But it does provide a 
neutral starting point for both sides to come together in a truly 
bipartisan manner, as we have done before, to find a solution with 
which we can all live. I am willing to work with my colleagues, and I 
am willing to consider all options that will allow us to move forward. 
If we fail to act, we will burden our students who are going to college 
with an extra $1,000 in student loan interest--just because we could 
not find a compromise. Pretty simple.
  The student loan situation, as we are all discussing and has been 
discussed throughout this country through various media outlets and the 
like--and they are focusing more and more and more on this issue, which 
I think is critical--we need to start a national conversation about 
addressing the primary issue affecting families with kids in college: 
the cost of annual tuition, room and board.
  Between 2000 and 2010, the cost of tuition, room and board rose 36 
percent, and that is after adjusting for inflation. That means students 
are now

[[Page 6103]]

paying one-third more for the same education they would have gotten 10 
years ago. Looking at previous decades shows a similar trend: From 1990 
to 2000, the increase was 26 percent; from 1980 to 1990, it was 37 
percent.
  Why are students paying so much more for the same education? As we 
know, it is a huge problem for families.
  While tuition is skyrocketing, there is still a total lack of 
transparency when it comes to schools' financial decisions. If the 
recent reports of outrageous administrator and faculty compensation 
packages are any indication, it would seem students and parents--
students and parents--are funding administrators' and faculty members' 
million-dollar salaries.
  Instead of being surprised by every new expose of outrageous pay 
packages, I propose increasing transparency by requiring schools to 
post their financial disclosures online, right in front, right on their 
Web sites, so everyone can see them. This would not be hard to do. In 
fact, the IRS already requires nonprofit institutions of higher 
education to file the IRS Form 990 yearly, which includes disclosure of 
the compensation packages for the highest paid employees. It also 
provides a financial snapshot of schools' finances and also how schools 
choose to spend tuition dollars.
  Making the information available so easily online will increase 
transparency and allow students and parents and the general public to 
check the schools' spending decisions--way before they make headline 
news. On the outrageous pay issues, sunlight may help begin to solve 
the spending problem associated with the high cost of education.
  No one disputes the importance of a college education, but we are 
setting our students up for failure by giving them above-market student 
loans and not requiring our schools to be transparent about their 
financial operations.
  So my suggestion is, let's work together. Let's not fail our 
students. It is time we finally focused the Federal Government on how 
we can set our students up for success instead of failure.
  Thank you. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are with an empty Senate Chamber, 
while families across the country are wondering whether they are going 
to have to come up with more money to pay higher interest rates on 
student loans beginning July 1. It is going to happen unless we take 
action.
  We have tried to take action, but, frankly, my friends on the other 
side, the Republicans, won't even let us go to the bill. We had our 
vote almost 3 hours ago. We recessed for our party conferences, as we 
do every Tuesday. Here we sit, without being able to even proceed to 
the bill because the Republicans voted against closing down debate and 
moving to the bill and offering amendments and having an up-or-down 
vote.
  The pattern is all too familiar, as we know, over the last few years: 
more and more filibusters, more and more cloture motions to end the 
debate. It is unfair to families and students all over America.
  Here I address my comments to students. They are the ones who are 
trying to get a higher education, because they know that is the 
pathway, the gateway to middle-class America. Young people today know 
that the jobs of the future will require a higher education. They 
understand that. So many are scrambling to put together resources to 
pay for college. We had a young woman this morning, Clarise McCants, 
who spoke with us. She is the first in her family to go to college. She 
is from Philadelphia, and she goes to Howard University. She comes from 
a very poor background and a poor family. She relies on Pell grants, a 
work-study program, and summer work jobs, plus her subsidized loans. If 
I am not mistaken, she has somewhere in the neighborhood of $13,000 or 
$15,000 right now in debt. The last thing Clarise McCants needs is to 
have an additional $1,000 a year put on her student loan interest. That 
is what will happen on July 1, unless we act here. It is unfair to her 
and to millions of students all over the country that we sit here and 
do nothing, while they wonder whether they are going to have to pay 
more in interest charges on July 1. It is unfair.
  We have on our side a solid proposal to keep the interest rates down 
for the next year at 3.4 percent, where they are now, rather than 
having them double to 6.8 percent. To do that, to pay for it, we have 
proposed that we close a glaring loophole in the Tax Code that applies 
only to subchapter S corporations. A lot of people say, what does that 
gobbledygook mean? A subchapter S corporation is for very small 
corporations. Compared to the giant corporations you normally think of, 
they are very small. Within that small universe of subchapter S 
corporations, as they are called, there is even a smaller universe. 
That small universe is comprised of professionals such as lawyers and 
accountants, people who give advice and do their own work, and they 
form a small corporation.
  Because of the fog that surrounds whether someone is paid a salary or 
is paid from dividends, many people who form these subchapter S 
corporations are not paying their fair share of Social Security and 
Medicare taxes. We have proposed that we draw a bright line so that 
people know whether they are getting paid a salary or wages, or whether 
it is coming out of dividends. The Joint Tax Committee says this will 
raise for us $9 billion over the next several years. That is enough to 
help us pay for keeping the interest rates low. Our proposal is three 
things: closing the tax loophole, it puts more money into the Medicare 
and Social Security trust funds, and third, it helps us keep interest 
rates low for students in this country.
  You would think that would be a no-brainer. I think most people would 
say that is kind of a no-brainer. But our friends on the Republican 
side refuse to let us even bring the bill up for debate and a vote. My 
Republican friends have suggested a different way of paying for this. 
They want to protect those few people in the subchapter S 
corporations--very wealthy people--from paying those taxes. They have 
suggested--the Republicans--that instead we take all the money to pay 
for keeping interest rates low out of the Prevention and Public Health 
Trust Fund--it is known as the prevention fund--which is in the 
Affordable Care Act. Again, that would drain all the money out. It 
would completely eliminate the program.
  I suggest that people look at today's headline in USA Today this 
morning. It says that 42 percent of the adult population by 2030 is 
expected to be obese. Out of that, one out of four will be severely 
obese. The same report was also in the Washington Post this morning. 
The study predicts that 42 percent of Americans will be obese by 2030, 
which will shorten life, and they will incur large medical expenses. In 
fact, if obesity stays at its current level and doesn't increase, the 
savings and projected health care costs will be considerable--about 
$550 billion, $\1/2\ trillion. That is what the prevention fund is 
doing. It is out there working every day--it has only been in existence 
a couple years now--putting things in place to prevent people from 
being obese, to prevent kids from getting the adult onset of diabetes 
at 10, 11, and 12 years of age. In 1980, only 15 percent of Americans 
were obese. Today, it is about 34 percent.
  What if we had in place in the 1980s, 1990s, and in the last decade 
the prevention fund that we have, which does all of the things 
necessary to help people make healthy choices and lead healthy lives 
and not become obese? Think of the savings we would have in our health 
care system today if we had a prevention fund like that in 1980, and 
rather than having 34 percent obese people in America today, we had 15 
or 16 percent. Well, projecting that forward to 2030, if we don't act 
now, 42 percent will be obese. Again, it will cost us $550 billion in 
the next 20 years.
  Preventing this, which we know we can do--we have evidence-based 
proof

[[Page 6104]]

that certain interventions and programs work. Not only does it keep 
obesity down, but diabetes and heart disease, and related illnesses 
will be lessened, thus saving us even more money. The prevention fund 
is what the Republicans want to kill, eliminate. I think that is 
disappointing and disturbing, after all that we know and have seen in 
the past on prevention and public health and what we can do to prevent 
illness, obesity, and diabetes in children, to say we are not going to 
put the resources forward to prevent that.
  We know that for every dollar we invest in prevention, we are reaping 
anywhere from $3 to $10, or more, in the first couple years. Here we 
are at an impasse again. Once again, the Senate is at an impasse 
because we cannot move to a bill. We can't amend it, vote on it, or 
debate it--other than talking about it right now as I am doing. The 
Republicans refuse to let us even get to the bill.
  We will continue to tell the American people what is at stake here 
and what the differences are. These are policy differences. The 
American people should know what those policy differences are. The 
Republicans say they want to keep the student interest rate at 3.4 
percent. We say we do, too. Well, OK, what is the difference? The 
policy difference is in how we pay for it, how we pay to make sure we 
keep the interest rates low.
  I think the logical thing would be to have the bill come to the 
Senate floor and offer amendments. If the Republicans want to offer an 
amendment to take the money out of the prevention fund and kill and 
eliminate the fund, let them do it, and we will vote on it; we will see 
if we have the votes to do that. They can debate it if they want, and 
we will be glad to debate and discuss closing this tax loophole on 
subchapter S corporations. I think that would be a healthy debate and a 
policy difference that the American people should see, and they can 
decide between the two sources of how we are going to pay for this.
  We are going to continue to talk about this because I think the 
American people should know what is at stake here in this filibuster 
that we have in front of us right now. I know my friends on the other 
side say that President Obama wanted to take some money out of the 
prevention fund. Well, that did happen, in order to extend for 1 year 
the unemployment insurance provisions and also the payroll tax cut this 
year. They seem to think that since we have already taken some money 
out of the prevention fund, we can kill the whole thing.
  My analogy this morning was that it is one thing to take a couple 
pints of blood, but it is another to take all your blood. So they took 
some nicks out of the prevention fund, which I didn't support, but the 
fund is still healthy, alive, and doing its job. It could do more if it 
had more money. Nonetheless, it is still there doing its job.
  The Republicans are saying drain all the blood out and kill the whole 
thing. I don't think the American people want to go there. It seems to 
me that it doesn't make common sense that we would pit the health of 
the American people--and women's health especially, children's health, 
and the elderly, who are benefitting right now from this prevention 
fund. There are immunizations, childhood checkups, and provisions that 
go out into communities for healthier living in our communities. There 
is better nutrition for our kids in schools, fresh fruits and 
vegetables, and more physical activity. That is all in the prevention 
fund. That is what they want to do away with. It is too bad that they 
are trying to pit the health of women and children and the future 
against students. That is not right.
  As I have said many times--and keep saying--I have heard from the 
other side that we are going after job creators. If we raise the taxes, 
you see, on subchapter S corporations--if we close that loophole, we 
are hurting job creators. First of all, the provisions in our bill on 
subchapter S only affect a corporation with three or fewer 
stockholders--hardly job creators. I mean, if somebody wants to start a 
corporation with 5, 10, 15, 20, that is different. This doesn't touch 
them. It only touches someone who has less than three shareholders, if 
their income is over $250,000 a year as a joint filer, and if they are 
a subchapter S corporation.
  Some say: Well, you know, they can get audited. I had an example I 
used the other day of a person who was claiming he didn't have to pay 
Social Security and Medicare taxes because he wasn't a subchapter S 
corporation. The individual was pretty ingenious. He had set up a 
subchapter S corporation, and he contributed--donated--his time.
  In exchange he got dividend payments--profits--from this subchapter 
S, as did his wife and his child. There were three--he, his wife, and 
child, and he did not pay Social Security taxes. Well, he happened to 
get audited, and the Justice Department took him to court, to Tax 
Court, and the Tax Court found out he really was being paid. He was 
making a salary, an income, and he had to pay Social Security taxes on 
that.
  Well, when I used that example, my friends on the Republican side 
said: Well, that is just it. All we have to do is just audit them, and 
we don't have to close this loophole. I had to point out that only \1/
2\ of 1 percent of all filings of subchapter S corporations are ever 
audited. So if someone is out there and there is not a bright line as 
to whether they are salaried or are getting dividends--it is kind of a 
fog out there--why wouldn't they err on the side of saying: I don't 
have to pay those taxes because the odds are 99.5 to 1 they will never 
get audited. Those are pretty good odds--99.5 percent of the time no 
one is ever audited. If they are audited, they get a slap on the wrist, 
pay a little fine, and move on.
  So what our bill does is to provide certainty. It provides certainty 
to subchapter S corporations that if they fall on this side of the 
line, they are salaried, if they have less than three shareholders. If 
they fall on the other side, they can get dividends, and that way they 
don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Quite frankly, I 
think that would be in the best interest of everyone, including the 
subchapter S corporations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the article that appeared in the Washington Post this morning by David 
Brown--the study that predicts 42 percent of Americans will be obese in 
2030.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From The Washington Post, May 7, 2012]

      Study Predicts 42 Percent of Americans Will Be Obese in 2030

                            (By David Brown)

       In 2030, 42 percent of American adults will be obese, and 
     about one-quarter of that group will be severely obese, a 
     condition that shortens life and incurs large medical 
     expenses, a new study predicts.
       This view into the future is less ominous than one 
     published four years ago that predicted that 51 percent of 
     the population would be obese in 2030. Nevertheless, the 
     trend fortells a huge drag on the health and economic welfare 
     of the United States.
       ``If we don't do anything, this is going to really hinder 
     any efforts to contain future health-care costs,'' Justin G. 
     Trogdon, an economist and one of the authors of the 
     projection, told experts Monday at the start of the two-day 
     ``Weight of the Nation'' conference in Washington.
       However, if obesity stays at its current prevalence--34 
     percent of adults--and does not increase, the savings in 
     projected health-care costs will be considerable, about $550 
     billion, the authors said. The most recent evidence, in fact, 
     suggests that obesity rates are plateauing.
       ``Regardless which is correct, we still have a very serious 
     problem,'' William H. Dietz, head of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention's obesity program, said of the 
     scenarios.
       Obesity related ailments--diabetes, heart disease, kidney 
     failure--consume at least 9 percent of health-care spending 
     in the United States. Some researchers believe the cost may 
     be twice that estimate. Total health spending is about $2.6 
     trillion a year.
       The new study, published in the American Journal of 
     Preventive Medicine, used obesity prevalence data from 1990 
     through 2008 to extrapolate future trends. The information 
     came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a 
     federally funded telephone survey. People underestimate their 
     weight when asked on the phone; that fact was compensated for 
     in the mathematical model.
       The researchers also incorporated variables, measured in 
     each state, that affect

[[Page 6105]]

     obesity rates. These included the price of gasoline, which 
     discourages walking when it is low; access to the Internet 
     (and other technologies), which encourages sedentary behavior 
     as it increases; and restaurants per 10,000 people, which 
     increases eating out and weight gain when the number goes up.
       In 2030, 42 percent of people are projected to be obese, 
     and 11 percent severely obese. Obesity is a body mass index 
     (BMI) of 30 or more, which is 186 pounds for someone 5 feet, 
     6 inches tall. Severe obesity is a BMI of 40 or more--248 
     pounds for someone that height.
       Cynthia L. Ogden, an epidemiologist at the CDC, told the 
     conference that, in general, obesity rates changed little in 
     the 1960s and 1970s, rose steeply in the 1980s and 1990s, and 
     have been leveling off in the past decade.
       For men, obesity prevalence doubled but has changed little 
     in the past eight years, with no difference between blacks, 
     whites and Mexican Americans (which are the three groups for 
     which there are good data). For white women, the obesity 
     prevalence has not changed in 12 years. It has risen slightly 
     in black women and Mexican American women, although that 
     increase mostly occurred early in that 12-year period.
       There are some exceptions to this general picture of 
     stability.
       Obesity is rising in higher-income men. Severe obesity is 
     increasing in both sexes. It was 6.2 percent in women in 1999 
     and 8.1 percent in 2010. For men, it was 3.1 percent in 1999 
     and 4.4 percent in 2010.
       Eric A. Finkelstein, a researcher at Duke University who 
     led the new study, said that just in the past 50 years has it 
     been possible for millions of people to be both sufficiently 
     inactive and to have access to enough food to become severely 
     obese.
       ``The world has changed in ways that allow people to be 
     that overweight,'' he said.
       The reason for the plateauing of the obesity prevalence is 
     uncertain. It almost certainly reflects many factors, 
     including an approach to a natural limit of the epidemic and 
     the success of efforts to fight it by encouraging exercise 
     and educating people about better eating habits.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I hope the Republicans will talk among 
themselves. I hope they will listen to the students and their families 
who don't want to be hung out there this week and next week and on and 
on and on not knowing whether they are going to have to pay higher 
interest rates on their student loans. Let's have cloture. Let's bring 
up the bill, and then let's vote on it. If they have amendments, fine, 
we will vote on them. But at least let's move the bill.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       EPA Rules and Regulations

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to spend a little time 
today talking about what has become known across the country as the 
Obama economy. This administration, after nearly 4 years, has failed to 
get this country and to get our economy moving again. Even worse, as I 
look at it, this administration seems to be taking steps that appear to 
be methodically and deliberately sabotaging certain parts of our 
Nation's economy. They are doing this in sectors of the economy that, 
apparently, to me, they just don't like. And they are doing it by 
issuing thousands and thousands of pages of redtape on the very people 
in this country who have successfully created jobs for Americans in the 
past.
  This administration has finalized 1,330 rules that have been deemed 
economically significant. They have proposed over 1,300 additional 
economically significant rules. So what does this mean, the words 
``economically significant''? Well, those are rules that have an annual 
impact on the economy of $100 million or more.
  Fifty-seven coal-fired powerplants have already announced their 
closure because of the cumulative effect of these rules on just this 
one industry. The EPA is proposing regulations on whole sectors of the 
economy, whether it is issuing new storm water regulations for existing 
buildings to requiring costly Clean Water Act permits. They are doing 
this for ditches on family farms.
  Thousands of American jobs have already been lost, and others are on 
the chopping block due to these rules. These are not new laws that have 
been passed but are rules coming from this administration. Each time 
the EPA claims the benefits of the rules vastly outweigh the costs. The 
costs are real in terms of real dollars to the economy, but the 
benefits are unknown. The administration claims the benefits are in so-
called ``saved future health care costs.'' That is how they define it, 
``saved future health care costs.''
  The EPA and this administration have a history of understating the 
costs and of overstating, in my opinion, the benefits. The EPA's math 
on the benefits and the costs of their rules is not even close to being 
accurate. This has been verified in testimony before the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve as a member.
  The EPA rules that set new burdensome limits on emission of 
pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, mercury, and sulfur dioxide, can 
have serious costs to plants and factories that then have to update 
their facilities with costly equipment or simply close to be under the 
new standard, and these are new standards--not the old standards but 
new standards.
  Those reductions yield few quantifiable benefits to the economy. That 
is not me saying that, it is the EPA's own models. They admit the 
reductions yield very few quantifiable benefits to the economy. The 
costs are usually significant to the businesses in terms of actual 
expenses, as well as to the public in terms of people looking for jobs 
and in terms of jobs that are lost.
  The EPA knows no one would buy into their rules with such high 
pricetags. So in order to inflate the so-called ``benefits'' of their 
rules, the EPA says: As a result of having less emissions from plants 
and factories, there must also be reductions in particulate matter, or 
dust, at the same time. They then make the inaccurate conclusion that 
reductions in dust will somehow yield billions of dollars in health 
benefits because folks will have healthier lungs and visit the doctor 
fewer times.
  These reductions in dust are often in areas where the dust level 
today is already well within public health safety standards that are 
set by the EPA. So the folks aren't actually getting sick in those 
areas anyway. So if people aren't already getting sick in the areas 
where the EPA is trying to regulate the air, then how is it they can 
claim they are going to save billions of dollars in fewer visits to the 
hospital by reducing dust levels even further than today's safe levels?
  What we know now is the EPA is cooking the books. At the same time, 
they are missing the real public health threat they, themselves, the 
EPA, is making worse; that is, the public health threat from high 
unemployment. I recently released a report entitled ``Red Tape Making 
Americans Sick--A New Report on the Health Impacts of High 
Unemployment.'' Let me repeat that: ``Red Tape Making Americans Sick--A 
New Report on the Health Impacts of High Unemployment. Studies Show EPA 
Rules Cost Americans Their Jobs and Their Health.''
  This is a report submitted by the Subcommittee on Clean Air and 
Nuclear Safety by the minority subcommittee staff.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Key 
Findings and Recommendations and the Executive Summary of this report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Red Tape Making Americans Sick--A New Report on the Health Impacts of 
                           High Unemployment


   Studies Show EPA Rules Cost Americans Their Jobs and Their Health

       Minority Subcommittee Staff Report; Subcommittee on Clean 
     Air and Nuclear Safety--Senator John Barrasso, M.D., Ranking 
     Member, March 2012.

   EPA Red Tape Increases Unemployment While Worsening Public Health


                    Key Findings and Recommendations

       Congressional testimony and scientific research reveals 
     that unemployment from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
     regulations: increases the likelihood of hospital visits, 
     illnesses, and premature deaths in

[[Page 6106]]

     communities due to joblessness; raises healthcare costs, 
     raising questions about the claimed health savings of EPA's 
     regulations; hurts children's health and family well-being.
       EPA claims of health benefits from current and future Clean 
     Air Act regulations are misleading and incomplete. The agency 
     must adequately examine the negative health implications of 
     unemployment into their cost-benefit analysis before making 
     health benefit claims to the public and Congress.
       The Full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and 
     the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety should 
     conduct additional hearings to responsibly investigate the 
     health implications of higher unemployment as a result of 
     federal regulations.


                           Executive Summary

       President Obama's Administration continues to claim that 
     new EPA Clean Air Act regulations for ozone, greenhouse 
     gases, electric utilities, domestic oil and gas producers, 
     and manufacturers deliver significant economic benefits. 
     Specifically, the agency says that these regulations will 
     yield billions of dollars in benefits for the U.S. economy in 
     the form of fewer premature deaths, sick days, hospital 
     visits, cases of bronchitis, and heart attacks.

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this is a comprehensive report, and it 
contains expert testimony before the Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee from the best scientific medical research, from 
institutions such as Johns Hopkins, Yale University, and others. This 
key medical research and testimony on the impact of unemployment on 
public health is irrefutable.
  The report concludes that high unemployment increases the likelihood 
of hospital visits, illnesses, and of premature death in communities. 
That is high unemployment; high unemployment raises health care costs, 
raising further questions about the claimed health savings of the EPA's 
regulations. High unemployment also hurts children's health and family 
well-being.
  On June 15, 2011, Dr. Harvey Brenner of Johns Hopkins University 
testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 
Here is what he said:

       The unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor 
     for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological 
     studies performed since the early 1980s.

  So this has been a well-known fact now for over 30 years. Continuing 
the quote:

       In addition to influences on mental disorder, suicide and 
     alcohol abuse and alcoholism, unemployment is also an 
     important risk factor in cardiovascular disease and overall 
     decreases in life expectancy.

  I speak as a physician, someone who has practiced medicine in 
Wyoming, taking care of Wyoming families for a quarter of a century, 
and I can assure you this is perfectly in keeping with my experience in 
my years of practicing medicine.
  Yale researcher Dr. William T. Gallo's paper on the impact of late-
career job loss reports:

       Results suggest that the true costs of late career 
     unemployment exceed financial deprivation, and include 
     substantial health consequences.

  ``Substantial health consequences.'' He goes on to say:

       Physicians who treat individuals who lose jobs as they near 
     retirement should consider the loss of employment a potential 
     risk factor for adverse vascular health changes.

  What does that mean? Well, it means a stroke, high blood pressure, or 
heart disease. These are all major killers, major things that result in 
disability and long-term health problems, increasing the cost of care.
  Let's look now at the impact of joblessness on children. The National 
Center for Health Statistics concluded:

       Children in poor families were four times as likely to be 
     in fair or poor health as children in families that were not 
     poor.

  I have seen firsthand how economic challenges affect Americans' 
health and their quality of life. In my medical opinion, this country 
faces a worsening health threat from unemployment, with well over 30 
months of unemployment rates over 8 percent.
  I have urged the EPA to seriously consider the impacts of these rules 
and the new rules they continue to come out with and how they have a 
bad impact on families--on pregnant women, on children, on the elderly. 
The EPA has not looked at the serious health impacts their rules result 
in. The EPA continues to hide behind computer models--not real people--
that churn out inflated, fictitious so-called ``benefits of health.''
  The time to get serious about public health is now. In fact, there 
was a USA Today article published Monday of last week, and I brought a 
copy along because it was very disturbing. On the front page of USA 
Today, Monday, April 30, 2012, the police are tying domestic violence 
to the economy. The headline reads: ``Domestic violence rises in 
sluggish economy, police report.'' The article states:

       Police are encountering more domestic violence related to 
     the sluggish economy, a national survey of law enforcement 
     agencies finds.
  These are law enforcement agencies across the country, their national 
survey. The article quotes Camden, NJ, police chief Scott Thompson, who 
stated it is ``impossible'' to separate the economy from the domestic 
turmoil in the city where unemployment is 19 percent. Camden police 
chief Scott Thompson went on to say:

       When stresses in the home increase because of unemployment 
     and other hardships, domestic violence increases. We see it 
     on the street.

  So these types of reports of increased domestic violence due to 
unemployment are not just being reported in Camden, NJ.
  The article cites Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Washington-
based law enforcement think tank, who expressed serious concerns with 
the rising violence. He said:

       You are dealing with households in which people have lost 
     jobs or are in fear of losing their jobs. This is an added 
     stress that can push people to the breaking point.

  I agree. It is certainly what I saw as well in my days of medical 
training and medical practice.
  The health crisis from unemployment under this administration is 
getting worse.
  On May 4, 2012, the Christian Science Monitor, in their article on 
the unemployment rate, said:

       While the economy added 115,000 net jobs in April, some 
     350,000 Americans gave up looking for work.

  So for every one new job that was added, three people gave up looking 
for work. That has the effect of reducing the unemployment rate 
because, by the Federal Government's way of calculating it, those 
people no longer count as part of the labor force. As a result, the 
share of Americans who are part of the labor force--either working or 
actively looking for work--has reached a 30-year low. You can add those 
numbers and look at those and say ``350,000 people'' and put that to 
the list of folks who are now at risk for serious health impacts due to 
the Obama economy.
  If we want to make Americans healthy, we need to get Americans back 
to work. We need to get the EPA out of the business of making folks 
unemployed across this country. Each new job is a job that will put 
food on the table for struggling families and help keep medical costs 
under control. New jobs will keep thousands of Americans out of the 
doctor's office and on the playground. Creating jobs will keep those 
nearing retirement from paying for more prescription drugs so they can 
spend more time and money on their grandchildren. Creating jobs will 
ensure that the next generation will be healthier than the last.
  Let's work together to improve public health by reducing this 
administration's redtape that is putting so many Americans out of work. 
The health and happiness of the American people depends upon it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Export-Import Bank

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments about free 
markets, free enterprise, and the role of government, particularly as 
it relates to the Export-Import Bank.
  When people ask me if I am pro-business or pro-labor, I say I am 
neither. I

[[Page 6107]]

am pro-freedom. Freedom is the only political principle that cannot be 
bent to serve special interests. Remember how 7-Up used to call itself 
the un-cola? Well, freedom is the un-special interest.
  Freedom, protected by the Constitution and the rule of law, works for 
everyone. It allows everyone--left or right, young or old, rich or 
poor--to make their own choices according to their own values.
  Government's job shouldn't be to tilt the field for one team or 
another but to guarantee a level playing field for everyone. That is 
why I am against forcing workers to join unions. I am against 
congressional earmarks for favored groups, government bailouts for Wall 
Street, and energy subsidies, both for oil companies and for green 
energy companies.
  Let's look at recent events surrounding the Boeing Company, one of 
South Carolina's most important employers. As a South Carolinian, as an 
American, and as a guy who likes cool airplanes, I love Boeing. When 
Boeing's home State labor union ganged up with President Barack Obama's 
National Labor Relations Board to try to sue Boeing for building a new 
factory in north Charleston, I strongly supported Boeing's freedom to 
build factories wherever they please. More recently, dust has been 
kicked up over the extension of the Export-Import Bank, a Federal 
program that subsidizes American businesses' exports. Because Boeing 
receives export-import subsidies and because I favor winding down the 
Ex-Im Bank instead of increasing its budget, some asked if I went from 
being pro-Boeing to anti-Boeing. Neither. I am just being pro-freedom.
  In both cases, my guiding principle is the same: liberty. Freedom 
isn't perfect, but it is fair. And any time government hands out 
favors, they are being unfair to someone. When Washington picks winners 
and losers, in the end taxpayers always lose, and the Ex-Im Bank is no 
exception. The Ex-Im Bank started out decades ago with a lending cap of 
$5 million to help American companies sell into a global economy that 
barely existed. Today, the cap has ballooned to $100 billion in a 
booming global economy. And what have the American people gotten for 
their money? They have gotten $10 million in loans benefiting the now 
bankrupt Solyndra, millions of dollars in loans to another solar 
company to sell solar panels to itself in another country, and $600 
million in loans to Enron projects before Ken Lay went to prison--all 
this after Ex-Im has already sought its own $3 billion taxpayer 
bailout.
  This isn't a criticism of an agency or an administration but of 
government subsidies in the first place. When government stays out of 
markets, businesses focus on their customers; quality improves, prices 
fall, and everyone wins. When government steps in, businesses turn 
their attention from their customers to their Congressmen and hire 
influence peddlers instead of innovators. Competition sags, the pace of 
innovation slows, prices rise, and product quality suffers.
  Defenders say the Ex-Im Bank is needed because Europe subsidizes 
their exports, but Europe says the same about our Export-Import Bank. 
We are in a bidding war with other countries for the biggest subsidies. 
Still, exporters say the cost of doing business in America is too high 
to compete. I agree. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the 
world, so let's cut taxes. Let's reform our insane $1.75 trillion per 
year regulatory state. Let's reform education and liberate our children 
from failing schools and create a better prepared workforce for the 
future. Let's repeal the government takeover of health care and put an 
end to predatory lawsuits filed against innocent businesses. In short, 
let's fix the rules of our game to make all of our exports competitive 
rather than rigging them for one company or product at a time.
  Our policies should make the United States the best place in the 
world to buy, sell, farm, manufacture, patent, invent, invest, 
innovate, and educate--for everyone in every industry.
  Look at what today's ad hoc economic policymaking has done to 
America--where a collection of narrow special interests vies for the 
favoritism of discredited politicians while we mount unsustainable debt 
onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. That is what I am 
against. What I am for is a level playing field, a set of clear rules 
that guarantee the freedom of entrepreneurs to make and sell what they 
want, and the freedom of customers to buy what they want.
  I am not for big business or big labor. I am for big freedom for 
everyone.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to address the motion to proceed 
we are currently debating. Essentially, this is a motion to proceed to 
a bill that would sustain the 3.4-percent interest rate on Stafford 
student loans.
  Earlier, we had a vote to attempt to conclude the debate over whether 
we should get to the bill. That has to have a supermajority of 60 under 
the rules of the Senate and we didn't have that supermajority. My 
colleagues across the aisle voted against debating whether to sustain 
the 3.4 percent on student loans or, to put it differently, they voted 
to block this effort and preserve the 6.8 percent as the rate we will 
go to shortly if we don't address this legislation.
  I certainly think students at every institution in Oregon would be 
appalled the Senate isn't willing to hold a debate over the doubling of 
the cost of student loans. This has a tremendously powerful impact on 
the affordability of education across America. We are at a point in the 
history of the world where our nations are interconnected. We have a 
global knowledge economy. The nations that prepare their children well 
not only will have the best future for those individual children, but 
they will have the best economy down the road.
  What is the impact of doubling the cost of student loans? Certainly, 
for many students it means they will not complete their education. They 
are facing diminished job prospects, they are facing expensive tuition, 
and there are only so many part-time jobs they can take while still 
attempting to complete their coursework. At some point they will say 
the burden is too heavy--the debt burden is too heavy--the hurdles are 
too high. Then we all lose. Our children will lose the opportunity to 
fulfill their potential to pursue their dreams and our economy loses 
because we are not the best prepared around the world.
  Indeed, today, across America we are becoming the first generation of 
parents whose children are getting less education than we got. I would 
like to see that debated on the floor of the Senate. I would like to 
hear a Senator stand and say they are proud of the fact that America is 
failing its children. I would like to hear that defended because I 
certainly have a different view. I have a view that in terms of the 
opportunity for our children and the success of our economy, we have to 
address the issue of the affordability of college tuition.
  The folks who can capture this issue the best are students 
themselves, so I have come to the floor to read a letter from one of 
the students in my home State who is making the case that we should 
debate this issue, that we should address affordable college. Here is 
what he has to say:

       Senator Jeff Merkley, my name is Mario Parker-Milligan. I'm 
     the student body president at Lane Community College in 
     Eugene, Oregon. My job as president gives me many 
     opportunities to discuss issues that students find important 
     to them and often I find myself lobbying or advocating for 
     issues that don't directly affect me. Today that is 
     different.
       Today, I find myself seeing a federal and statewide 
     disinvestment in higher education institutions across the 
     nation and dramatically here in Oregon. At the same time, 
     more and more students are needing need-based aid while it 
     too is being diminished. Students are graduating from college 
     but our

[[Page 6108]]

     debt loads are increasing and we are finding fewer jobs upon 
     graduation. With all of these other barriers--low federal and 
     state investment pricing students out of tuition, low 
     financial aid leads to high student debt, and few jobs upon 
     graduation--the prospect of having Stafford Loans' interest 
     rates doubling is a haunting thought. Students are continuing 
     to pay more and get less for our education.
       Today, the average student is graduating with twenty-five 
     thousand dollars of loan debt. I have over eighteen thousand 
     dollars of loan debt today. An interest rate of six point 
     eight percent on top of thousands of dollars we owe in this 
     economy doesn't seem smart either. I am not close to being 
     done with my education and am fearful to continue to take out 
     loans when I think of how long it will take to pay it back. 
     Students rely heavily on student loans in order to complete 
     college in a timely manner, otherwise many of us are forced 
     to work 2-3 jobs while attempting to go to college full time, 
     which usually results in prolonged stays and more debt.
       As a member of the board of directors for both the Oregon 
     Student Association (OSA) and the United States Student 
     Association (USSA), both associations working to break down 
     barriers to higher education, I hear stories of students that 
     are having to choose whether or not they put food on the 
     table or keep lights on at home. Affordability is a leading 
     barrier to a quality education and raising interest rates 
     will only continue to price students out of an education. 
     Please vote to maintain the Stafford Loan interest rates at 
     3.4%. Don't Double Our Debt. Sincerely, Mario Parker-
     Milligan--of Eugene, OR.

  I think Mario does voice the concerns of hundreds of thousands of 
students across America who are working hard to complete their 
coursework to pursue their dream--to gain the skills to provide both a 
purpose in life, a life mission, if you will, and a stable financial 
foundation. The prospect of coming out of college with debts that come 
close to a mortgage on a home is indeed daunting.
  I must say, I view this through the lens of my own experience as a 
child of a working family. My father was a millwright and then a 
mechanic, and no one in my family had ever gone to college. I was the 
first, and the prospect of debt was a consideration that worried my 
family with this unfamiliar course that I was undertaking. I feel very 
fortunate that in the end the combination of work-study, affordable 
loans, and scholarship meant that I graduated from my undergraduate 
education without the heavy debt burden--a very modest burden--not the 
very heavy burden students are bearing today. That indeed gave me the 
range of options to pursue in life that I might not have had if I had 
to immediately find a job that would help me pay back those very high 
loans that students are facing. And those are the students who complete 
their education. So many more will find that they only make it partway 
through because the debt becomes too high. So I am disturbed--very 
disturbed--that the Senate body, once known as the world's greatest 
deliberative body, voted today not to debate this issue, not to take it 
up.
  My colleagues may be voicing their concern about the specific aspects 
of the bill. I would say to them that they should come to the floor and 
offer amendments and we should debate those amendments. But let's not 
fail the students of America. I believe the majority leader has 
reserved the right for reconsideration, and that in a matter of a few 
days we might well have another vote on this topic. I would ask my 
colleagues to reconsider, to end their filibuster aimed at preventing 
us from keeping the 3.4-percent interest on Stafford loans--that they 
would reconsider and say, yes, there is a responsibility to debate this 
issue.
  It shouldn't just be on Stafford loans in that we also certainly have 
a big challenge maintaining Pell grants and keeping those grants 
competitive with the rising tuition. We should debate other strategies 
about how to make our investment in higher education more efficient. 
Maybe all those debates don't have to happen on this bill; maybe this 
bill should be restricted to Stafford loans. But for this body to 
reject the notion of debating an issue central to the success of our 
university students, the success of our children, and the success of 
our economy is just wrong. Let's change that vote. Let's get on to this 
bill in due course in a short amount of time.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am speaking today on the need to Stop 
the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012.
  It is obvious how hard it is to pay for college these days. It is not 
just hard for poor people--and we have some programs that help poor 
people out at the Federal level, Pell grants in particular, and that is 
a good thing. But you can be making well above the Pell grant allowance 
level, well above the income that you need for a Pell grant, and have a 
difficult time paying for college.
  College is extremely expensive. The average private college cost a 
year is over $30,000, and the average public cost has gone way up. With 
all the cutbacks at all the Federal, State, and local levels, it is 
about $17,000. If you figure that if you are an average family anywhere 
in America making $65,000 or $70,000, $17,000 a year after you pay your 
taxes and pay your mortgage and pay for the necessities of life is a 
heck of a lot of money. Wisely, the Federal Government has provided 
some loans. A few years ago, under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, 
we decided to have the Federal Government pay for those loans because 
when the banks did it, it ended up being far more expensive than it had 
to be. Those loans were originally 6.8 percent around when the banks 
did it. They went down and down, and they settled to a nice level of 
3.4 percent.
  Now 3.4 percent is still interest. Particularly these days it is not 
such a low rate of interest given that the cost of money is quite low, 
but it is a lot better than 6.8 percent. But, unfortunately, the law 
that Senator Kennedy shepherded and many of us voted for and President 
Bush signed--I believe it was in 2007--expires come July 1.
  What will that mean? That will mean millions of students throughout 
America will pay a lot more interest on the loans that are a necessity 
for going to college.
  We all know how important college is. We all know these days the 
statistics show that the unemployment rate among college grads is one-
third that of high school grads. We know that at your income level, you 
make thousands of dollars more each year if you have a college degree. 
There was a recent study that even showed you live longer if you got to 
college. I don't know what the correlation was, but it was a broad-
based study. It was trumpeted in many of our leading newspapers. So a 
college degree is very important, and one of the ways we measure 
America versus other countries in terms of our future is what is the 
percentage of our kids who get a college degree. Unfortunately, that 
has been declining. We used to be first. Now I don't think we are even 
tenth, and it is declining because of the cost of college. So a high 
interest rate on top of the basic cost--$17,000, $36,000, whatever--is 
bad for students, bad for their families, and, frankly, bad for 
America.
  In New York, my State, 423,000 college students would pay $341 
million more in loan payments if we didn't pass this legislation.
  I would say one other thing, and that is that this affects almost all 
college students. You say, Well, I started college last year and I am 
at 3.4. You are at 3.4 for your freshman year if you are a freshman in 
college. But when you go to your sophomore year and renew your loans 
July 1, you are going right up to 6.8 percent. So it affects everybody 
in college except--luckily for them--the senior class that is 
graduating this year.
  It will also affect the new class of freshmen who are coming in, and 
I would bet many of them are watching this debate and deciding whether 
they can go to college or they can go to the college of their choice--
one that they deserve to go to because of their grades and record and 
accomplishments--

[[Page 6109]]

based on this bill. And so, wisely, Senator Jack Reed and Senator Tom 
Harkin and Senator Sherrod Brown have put in legislation that would 
keep the rate at 3.4 percent.
  When they first did this--and President Obama has been fully 
supportive and he has talked about this at length on campuses 
throughout America and in other places throughout America. When they 
put it in, amazingly enough most of our Republican colleagues, in 
places such as the Club for Growth and American Enterprise Institute, 
said: We are against it. Let the students pay 6.8 percent. That was 
sort of the 21st century analog of Marie Antoinette saying, Let them 
eat cake, because in these days college is much more of a necessity 
than it ever used to be, even for jobs like machine welder or auto 
mechanic. These days, our cars are filled with computers and you often 
need some college education, at least a 2-year college education, to be 
proficient in skills that maybe 40 years ago you just needed a wrench 
for. So it was amazing to me that so many of our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle said they were against keeping the rate at 3.4 
percent.
  They began to get a lot of flak, I am sure, from families across the 
country. So they decided they couldn't be against it, per se, and so in 
the House they actually--and the President was making a lot of hay with 
this and scoring a lot of points. So over in the House they then 
decided, Okay, we can't say we are against this. Of course, we all want 
to pay for it, and so we will propose a bill that pays for it by 
cutting preventive services in health care.
  There are two points about that. One, our preventive services in 
health care are needed, whether it is child immunization, whether it is 
diabetes prevention--the fastest growing disease around--whether it is 
mammograms which wouldn't start this year but would start next year as 
a result of the prevention money--prevention is vital to keeping health 
care costs down and keeping America healthy. To say the only way we 
will give you student loans is to take away preventive health care is 
akin to telling a family: Your little grandson cannot get immunizations 
if you want your children to be able to pay for their college. It does 
not make sense and everyone knew it.
  The second point is everyone knew it at the time. I don't think there 
was a person in this town who thought that paying for it by cutting 
prevention would have a chance in this body. But, frankly, I think that 
is what some of my colleagues in the other body wanted. Their MO for 
the last year and a half has been obstruct without fingerprints. In 
other words, they want to obstruct everything. They want the government 
to be a mess. They want people to be unhappy so they will change things 
in the election.
  But they know, if they are caught obstructing, it is not going to 
work out too well for them. In the first half of this year, I have to 
give them credit, they carried out this strategy of obstruction without 
fingerprints quite well. Part of it is because the media likes to say 
``on the one hand, on the other hand.'' There is a very good article, 
tangential to this, by Norm Ornstein at the American Enterprise 
Institute and Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings 
Institution, one from a conservative group and one a more liberal 
group, which basically laid this out.
  In the second half of the last year and now this year their little 
strategy of obstructing without fingerprints is not working. It didn't 
work on the debt ceiling. It didn't work on the payroll tax cut. It 
didn't work on the highway bill. It didn't work on the postal bill, 
and, ``gloriosky,'' we are passing legislation because they can no 
longer obstruct without fingerprints. Faced with the choice of being 
caught obstructing or not obstructing, they stopped obstructing. Good 
for America. Good for bipartisanship. If it was good for them on the 
other side, fine.
  On this one, they are back to their old ways because they put in this 
pay-for they know cannot pass. What was the pay-for we put in? We 
thought it would pass. We thought it had bipartisan support. It was one 
of the things considered in various groups in committees, bipartisan, 
on how to pay for the deficit. I think this was considered in the 
august group of last year.
  What we say is simply this. If you are a partnership--a big law firm, 
accounting firm--there are some of them, a small number, not most, most 
did it the right way, but they want to avoid the payroll tax. How do 
they do it? They say we are giving our partners dividends as opposed to 
salaries, and they do not pay a payroll tax, the payroll tax we all pay 
up to the first hundred-and-some-odd thousand dollars of salary.
  That seems reasonable and fair. It was a loophole. It was called a 
loophole when John Edwards was caught doing it in his law firm, by Rush 
Limbaugh, by others as well--many conservatives. They called it a 
loophole that ought to be closed. I wish I had the language.
  I will ask unanimous consent to add to the Record the language of 
several leading conservative commentators and gurus about what a 
loophole this was.
  Anyway, we put this in and we thought they would accept it. Of 
course, to our surprise last night not a single Republican voted to 
move forward and debate this bill. We will let them put their pay-for 
on the floor to substitute for ours. They are not even willing to do 
that. Leader Reid said this over and over. I just heard him say it at 
2:15 when we had a little gathering by the Ohio Clock.
  We are here on the floor tonight, and I see the Senator from Ohio and 
the Senator from Maryland--we are here on the floor tonight to ask 
families and students throughout America to let their Senators know 
they want this legislation passed and they want the games to stop.
  On my Facebook page, and on the Facebook page of many of my 
colleagues, is a description of the bill, of what people need to do. We 
ask people to send us, on our Facebook pages, their stories--why they 
need it, why it is so important to them. Senator Jeff Merkley already 
read a letter from a student from Oregon. Senator Stabenow got over 70 
responses already of students from Michigan. We also hope they let our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle know how important it is they 
vote for this bill.
  The bottom line is simple. This should be a no-brainer. If there were 
ever an example of Washington tying itself in a knot, this is the 
issue. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have other pay-
fors, we will take a look at them--but make them real. Make them truly 
subject to bipartisan compromise as opposed to something they know we 
cannot accept.
  I heard the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Brown, introduced 
something, but the CBO scored it as not bringing in any money. We have 
all agreed we should not increase the deficit to do this and we should 
find a way to pay for it. Our preferred way is closing a loophole that 
everyone admits is abusive and a way to get around the payroll tax. But 
we are willing to sit and listen to other suggestions from the other 
side of the aisle so we can help our college students.
  The bottom line is we have to pass this bill. It is an extremely 
important bill for the future of our country because every time a young 
man or a young woman deserves to go to a college of their choice and 
doesn't go, goes to a different one that less suits their needs because 
they cannot afford it, they lose, their family loses, and America 
loses. Let's stop the games. Let's come together. Let's pass this bill, 
and let's make sure students of this and future generations are able to 
afford the college education that is so important to a better future 
for their lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent the time from 5:15 to 7 
p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees and that all quorum calls during that period also be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I wish to follow up on Senator 
Schumer's call to action, if you will, because it appears that things 
that used

[[Page 6110]]

to be bipartisan, whether it was the debt ceiling or the Transportation 
bill or a whole host of other things, has become far too partisan. Back 
in 2007, the Republican President and Democrats in the House and Senate 
and Republicans in the House and Senate--but Democratic majorities--
froze interest rates for college loans, subsidized Stafford student 
loans at 3.4 percent for 5 years. All we want to do is we want to 
continue this. We want to continue it by closing a tax loophole. One 
political party that does not seem very enthusiastic about freezing 
these rates anyway seems to be standing in the way. I think the only 
way this is going to change is if students all over the country come 
and tell their stories.
  They can come to my Web site, tell their stories about school 
financing and how difficult it has been for them. They can come to 
brown.senate.gov/collegeloanstories and tell us their stories.
  This past week, I have been to a community college in Cleveland and I 
have been to Ohio State University in Columbus, Wright State University 
near Dayton, and the University of Cincinnati and heard many of these 
stories. I invite students around Ohio--we are asking for them to tell 
their personal stories. I think, in the end, personal stories will 
convince my colleagues they should not make this partisan. They should 
not stand in the way. They should work with us so we can freeze this 
student loan interest rate at 3.4 percent because I think it will 
matter.
  In my State--and I know the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State 
of the Presiding Officer, is not much different than that--the average 
4-year student in Ohio who graduates has a $27,000 accumulated debt for 
their 4 years of college. That means those students will have more 
difficulty--probably will not be able to buy a home or probably will 
have to delay it, delay getting married or starting a business. I think 
it is very immoral for us to pile more debt on top of what they already 
have. If we want to build a prosperous society the way we did with the 
GI bill--the GI bill provided individual opportunity for millions of 
students in the 1940s and 1950s, young men and women returning from the 
war, and it not only helped those millions of students but lifted the 
country as a whole and created a more vibrant society because we helped 
so many individuals with the GI bill in those days. This is comparable 
to that--men and women who want to go to St. Clair Community College or 
want to go to the Mansfield Campus at Ohio State or want to go to Hiram 
College or Ohio University in Athens. They want to go to school. We 
cannot load this much debt onto them.
  As we put this on our Web site, we expect students to write in and 
tell their stories. I know they will. We have five stories. I will 
share a couple of these for today and save a couple more.
  Bonnie of Elyria, a mother and teacher, writes:

       I would really like to be able to send my three boys to 
     college. As a public school teacher, I have worked hard to 
     instill in my students the idea of continuing education. 
     However, my own children will most likely have to take out 
     student loans to pursue a college education.

  Our teachers are not so well paid that they can afford to pay these 
tuition bills themselves, obviously.

       With soaring tuition rates, my children will graduate 
     college with more debt than me or my husband had after 
     graduating from college more than 35 years ago.
       This is not a good way to start a career or a life on their 
     own.

  This woman gets it. She was a teacher in Ohio. She knew there was 
sort of an assault on her profession from the Governor and the 
legislature last year when they tried to take away collective 
bargaining rights. We know teachers do not make a lot of money, and if 
their children are to go to school, even less-expensive schools, they 
so often need to take out student loans. We don't want to raise their 
interest rates.
  Katie, from Marion, writes--Marion is a community just north and west 
of Columbus.

       I urge you to vote against raising Stafford loan rates. I 
     live with my fiance, who is also attending college full time, 
     and our household brings in less than $35,000 a year. I am 
     working part time in order to attend college full time. With 
     college tuition and expenses being so expensive, adding in 
     the normal cost of living, it is a struggle to make ends meet 
     every month.
       I understand and respect the legislative process and, 
     unlike many people I know, I still have faith it can be 
     effective. I know that compromises have to be made for change 
     to occur.
       However, I am worried that by the time everyone is on the 
     same page, the Government will have either taken so long to 
     come up with a solution or cut funding so much, that the 
     average American can no longer afford to pursue a college 
     degree.
       . . . I hope that if nothing else, you take away from this 
     that there are Ohioans in this for the long run. We will not 
     accept anything less than what we deserve, and education is 
     not negotiable.

  The last one I will read is by RaShya, of Toledo.

       I am a second year law student at the University of 
     Minnesota law school. I am a native of Toledo, OH and 
     received my BA in political science with honors and an MBA in 
     finance from the University of Toledo.''
       I am the product of a single-parent home and a first-
     generation college graduate. My mother is a cancer survivor 
     and my father was shot and killed when I was ten. I am the 
     eldest of three children.
       My education has been a miracle of sorts and allowed me to 
     change the circumstances of my environment.
       It was only possible through scholarship money and federal 
     loans. I am deeply saddened by the rate hikes that loom in 
     July of this year.
       Making education less accessible hurts others that grew up 
     in circumstances similar to mine. This economy requires a 
     good college education but the promise of employment is still 
     uncertain.
       Raising loan rates hurts students. Please vote to extend 
     the rate cuts that threaten to expire this July.

  Those three letters so speak for themselves where students just want 
an opportunity. They are not asking for welfare or a handout, they just 
want to keep interest rates low so they can go to college without such 
a huge, onerous, burdensome debt they will never get out from under it. 
Why would we do this to this generation? My wife was the first in her 
family to go to college. Her dad carried a union card, worked at the 
illuminating company. Her mother was a home care worker who went back 
to work when Connie started college to try to help them pay--and she 
graduated.
  She had very little help from her family financially because she was 
the eldest of four children. She got low-interest loans, and she 
graduated with only a couple thousand dollars of debt from Kent State 
University.
  Those days seem to be behind us. We should at least aim for that kind 
of situation today where young people get a better chance, more of a 
fighting chance when they come out of school.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to these stories and to read some of 
them and to vote accordingly when we bring this bill back to the floor. 
Today there was a vote, and more than 40 of our colleagues said: We are 
not even going to allow this bill on the floor to debate. That is 
pretty unconscionable to me when we hear the stories of these young 
people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what is the pending order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in divided time until 7 p.m.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is it in morning business or are we on an issue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to proceed.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we voted at noon today on whether we were going to 
start the debate on the student loan interest rate bill.
  For those who are following it, the largest Federal loan to college 
students, the Stafford loan, has a current interest rate of 3.4 
percent. That interest rate expires on July 1 and doubles to 6.8 
percent, meaning any students taking out a loan after that date will 
pay twice as much in interest.
  The practical impact of that is fairly clear: If you were to borrow 
$20,000 to

[[Page 6111]]

go to college through a Federal Stafford loan and paid 3.4 percent on 
that $20,000, you would find that you were paying $4,000 less than you 
would pay if you were at 6.8 percent. So it adds roughly 20 percent to 
the cost of that student's loan over the life of repayment. That is a 
significant expense.
  Most of us are aware, or should be, that students across America are 
going more deeply and deeply into debt to go to college. Average 
college indebtedness: $24,000. But an average does not tell the story 
because if you have one hand over a flame and one hand in a freezer, on 
average you have to feel just fine. But in this case, students are 
going much more deeply into debt than $24,000, and the interest rate on 
the loan is significant.
  So it would seem this is a pushover. Who disagrees with this idea 
that lessening the burden on students in college is good for our 
country--because more students will seek higher education--good for the 
student--less of a burden when they graduate--good for their families--
because many of them cosigned on these loans?
  In fact, this is one of those rare issues where both President Obama 
and Governor Romney agree: Don't let the interest rate go up from 3.4 
percent to 6.8 percent. So today we resumed the motion to proceed, 
which literally means, if adopted, we would begin debate on the student 
loan interest rate bill to keep it at 3.4 percent and not let it double 
July 1.
  We heard from both sides of the aisle that everyone agreed we had to 
do this. It sounded pretty easy. Then the vote was called. At the end 
of the vote, not one single Republican Senator had voted to proceed to 
the debate on the bill--not one. One Senator, Ms. Snowe, voted present. 
Every other Republican Senator who was present voted no.
  How did this become a partisan issue? We have President Obama and 
Governor Romney agreeing, most Americans agreeing we do not want the 
cost of student loans to go up, and it fell flat on its face on the 
Senate floor at noon today. Not a single Republican would vote for it.
  I don't understand it. They say, well, we don't like the way you pay 
for it. It costs $6 billion to lower the interest rate that we would 
otherwise collect. We pay for it by changing the Tax Code, closing a 
tax loophole primarily used by accountants and attorneys under 
subchapter S corporations to avoid paying their regular income tax on 
their income. They get through this S corporation what are called 
income dividends and they don't pay the regular income tax rate or the 
withholding tax that ordinary income is subject to. I think closing 
that loophole is reasonable. It produces $6 billion and pays for the 
student loan interest rate to stay down. I can accept that.
  Some on the Republican side say, no, that is a tax increase. They--
many of them--have categorically said we will never, ever, never vote 
for a tax increase, no matter what it is. So they walked away from the 
student loan bill. They say they have a better way to do it. Senator 
Reid came to the floor and said, fine, we will call the bill and you 
can offer your way to do it. Pay for it a different way. Let's bring it 
up for debate. Let both sides debate it and let's vote on it, and then 
let's move forward. No, they would not accept that. They all voted 
against proceeding to the bill.
  For anybody who is following what is going on here, this is what is 
known as a filibuster. The Senate is infamous for them now. We 
filibuster everything, even bills that are bipartisan, which everybody 
agrees on. No, we are going to drag this out hour after weary hour, 
eating up the time of the Senate, and people will be asking for a cable 
refund because nothing is happening on the C-SPAN channel because they 
are watching a filibuster. Not much happens. Yes, Members such as I 
will come from time to time to give a speech and explain what is going 
on, but nothing substantive is going on. We are not considering the 
bill.
  Sadly, what we are failing to do is going to affect a lot of innocent 
people; 7.4 million students will be affected if we don't change this 
interest rate--365,000 in my State of Illinois. These Stafford loans, 
Federal Government loans, are mainly directed toward families in lower 
income situations, so that students can borrow money to get through 
school.
  Let me confess my conflict here. I would not be standing here today 
without government loans. I borrowed money from the Federal Government 
to go to college and to law school under the National Education Act and 
then paid it back; otherwise, I could not have gone to school; I 
couldn't have afforded it. These loans are needed across the board. We 
know it from personal experience.
  In 2007 and 2008, 30 percent of all undergraduates took out federally 
subsidized Stafford loans--about 1 out of 3. The average was about 
$3,400 a loan 4 or 5 years ago. This year, it is up to 8 million 
students. As I mentioned, 365,000-plus borrowers in my State, and, as I 
mentioned, failure to reduce that interest rate will add to the cost of 
the loan they have to pay back. These borrowers, 7.4 million students, 
including 1.5 million African-American borrowers and over 986,000 
Hispanic borrowers, will face this new penalty, this loan increase. It 
is clear to me that we should be spending time here dealing with this.
  I learned it firsthand when I went home last week and visited 
campuses. In Chicago, I went to DePaul. Downstate, I went to Bradley 
University in Peoria. In Decatur, I went to Millikin University. In 
each place, students came forward to explain what they were facing in 
terms of student loans. I will enter into the Record the experiences 
they shared with me.
  One of them was Amy. Amy goes to DePaul University in Chicago and is 
an art major. Her sister Michelle came to join us at the press 
conference. Here is Amy's situation. Amy comes from a working family 
who cannot help her pay, so she works and borrows to try to get through 
school. She is an art major. Her student loan indebtedness at the end 
of June will be, for 4 years, $80,000. But she says that a bachelor's 
in art is not good enough and thinks she needs a master's. She thinks 
it will be another $60,000 she needs to borrow. I said: That is 
$140,000, young lady, and you are 25 or 26 years old. She will be 
borrowing not only the government loan but way beyond that into private 
loans. The government loan is 3.4 percent. The private loans for 
students in school range from 8 to 18 percent--much like credit card 
debt, they are so expensive.
  This young lady thinks she is doing the right thing. She was told go 
to school, get an education, and follow her dream. Her dream is at the 
end of a very long, expensive road and $140,000 in debt. Michelle, her 
sister, decided she wanted to be a teacher and teach grade school. She 
looked at the indebtedness she would have to incur and decided to move 
back home to Indiana and go to the local public college and try to get 
as many credits as she could at a low price, and perhaps finish at 
DePaul when it is time. She thought: If my debt is too much, I would 
not be able to teach or make enough money to pay my loan back. That is 
a real-life story of two sisters who are doing the right thing and are 
facing student loan debt.
  How could we explain that we are going to raise the interest rate on 
either one of them? At this point paying back their student loans will 
make it virtually impossible for Amy, who could be $80,000 to $140,000 
in debt, and how is Michelle going to be the teacher we want her to be?
  At Bradley University in Peoria, a student named Rose told me that if 
the interest rate on her loans doubled, which will happen if the 
filibuster continues by the Republicans, she might have to move in with 
her parents after graduation or make sacrifices in order to make her 
loan payments. Rose estimates that increasing interest rates will cost 
about $4,000, because she plans on graduating with about $20,000 in 
debt.
  I also met Deshawn from Alton, IL, a freshman majoring in economics 
and political science at Bradley. He wants to be an international 
lawyer some day. He is a first-generation college student, and he 
realizes that without

[[Page 6112]]

student loans he doesn't have a chance to realize his dream.
  What is the difference of opinion here about how to pay for these 
decreases in the interest rate from 6.8 to 3.4? As I mentioned, we 
would close the tax loophole on subchapter S corporations, which are 
used by accountants and attorneys to avoid paying the ordinary income 
tax and withholding.
  There is another proposal out of the House that I think is really 
bad. They say we should pay for keeping student loans affordable by 
reducing preventive health care programs. We have a fund that we have 
created that pays for, among other things, preventive care, childhood 
immunizations. So if the money is taken out of that fund, fewer 
American children will be receiving the vaccines and the inoculations 
which we want for all of our kids to keep them safe. Is it important 
that kids receive these vaccinations? I think it is very important.
  Senator Reid said at a press conference here that the incidence of a 
return of whooping cough--most people thought that was long gone--in 
the United States is at the highest level in 50 years, and the 
incidence of the return of measles in this country is at the highest 
level in 15 years. Childhood immunizations are important to keep our 
kids healthy and safe.
  There is also money in this prevention fund, which the House 
Republicans want to cut out, calling it a slush fund, to be used for 
diabetes prevention. You cannot pick up a newspaper or a magazine 
without reading about the incidence of obesity, the growing number of 
overweight children, and the increasing incidence of diabetes among our 
children. In fact, forms of diabetes that used to be confined to adults 
in America are now being found in children in America. They have to be 
treated with pretty powerful drugs to overcome this disease of 
diabetes.
  The House Republicans say let us reduce the amount of money we are 
using for public education and treatment to reduce the incidence of 
diabetes and instead spend it on student loans. What a Faustian bargain 
that is. It is a bargain with the devil. We are going to put at risk 
children when it comes to immunizations and diabetes, in order to help 
grown children, young adults, pay their student loans.
  Is that what it has come to? We are so determined to not touch the 
Tax Code and the loopholes in it that we are going to risk the health 
of our children or the cost of a college education for our kids as 
well?
  I think the approach in the House is not defensible. I hope that at 
the end of the day we can make sure we do this in a responsible way.


                           For-Profit Schools

  Mr. President, I want to mention 2 other things quickly. One of the 
real problems with debt in this country relates to for-profit schools. 
Go to Yahoo or Google, put in ``college and university'' and step back. 
What is about to hit you is an avalanche of ads for for-profit schools. 
I don't need to recount the names on the floor. Everybody knows them. 
These are the schools that are advertising constantly: Come to our 
school. They run ads on television. One, I think, tells the story and 
shows a lovely young lady in a robe and pajamas, who has her laptop on 
her bed and says: You know, you can go to college in your pajamas now. 
I am going to XYZ for-profit school getting my college degree.
  Here is what is happening: These for-profit schools are inundating 
the Internet and recruiting young people who otherwise might not go to 
college, many of them, and 10 percent--here are three numbers--of kids 
graduating from high school end up in these for-profit schools. So what 
the for-profit schools are looking for is young people who are in lower 
income family categories because they qualify for the most Federal 
assistance--Pell grants and Federal student loans. Ten percent of the 
students at the for-profit schools and 25 percent of all Federal aid 
for education goes to these schools--more than 2\1/2\ times, based on 
the number of students, the amount you might imagine.
  Hang on, it gets more challenging. Almost half of the student loan 
defaults in America come from for-profit schools. Why? The kids get too 
deeply in debt and end up dropping out because the debt is overwhelming 
or they finish and get a worthless diploma and cannot find a job. That 
is the story. So the student debt in traditional schools, public 
universities, private, not-for-profit universities, is one thing; on 
the for-profit side that debt is mounting, particularly through private 
student loans.
  Here is the kicker, and you know this, Mr. President, because you 
studied this issue too. Student loans are the only private loans in 
America not dischargeable in bankruptcy. What it means is that you are 
carrying it for a lifetime. You will carry it until you pay. That young 
lady $140,000 in debt could not have a clue what she has done to the 
rest of her life by getting that deeply in debt. I have students 
contacting me with over $100,000 in debt for a 4-year education, and 
they find out the diploma is worthless. There is one school, Westwood 
College, which operates out of Denver, CO, and has a campus in Chicago. 
They are under investigation now by our State attorney general. Too 
many young people have been watching too many crime shows, and Westwood 
College knows it. They call them and say how would you like a 
bachelor's degree in law enforcement. Maybe they are watching ``Hawaii 
5-0'' and ``CSI'' and they like that stuff. Good, come on out.
  I will tell you a story of one student. She went to Westwood College 
and it took 5 years to get a bachelor's degree in law enforcement. She 
took that diploma to the police departments and sheriffs' departments 
around the Cook County area, and they said: That is not a real college. 
We don't recognize that as a real diploma.
  There she was with a worthless diploma and in debt $80,000 for a 
student loan. Now she is living in her parents' basement. She can't 
borrow another nickel to go to a real college, and she owes, obviously, 
$80,000 and is struggling with two jobs to try to pay it off.
  There is another part of the story that we should not ignore. Many of 
these schools, particularly the for-profit schools, realize that 
hooking the kids into this loan is not enough, so they have the parents 
cosign. Sometimes the grandparents cosign. Six weeks ago, the New York 
Times ran a story of a woman who had her Social Security check 
garnished because she owed on a student loan. It wasn't hers, it was 
her granddaughter's loan. She cosigned, and her granddaughter 
defaulted, and now the grandmother has her Social Security check being 
docked because she owes on the loan. This is a horrible situation. It 
will be a worse situation if the interest rate on July 1 doubles.
  So we have this Republican filibuster against bringing down the 
interest rate on student loans, and yet we now have an empty floor. 
Whoever thought it was a good idea for us not to debate and not to vote 
on this interest rate increase is long gone. They are not even here. I 
think that is the real unfairness of the filibuster. If a Senator or 
Senators stop the business of the Senate and say we can't even take up 
the bill or consider an amendment, then I think they owe it to the 
Senate to be here and explain their point of view.
  I hope that tomorrow, when the dawn of a new day breaks and the 
Senate opens, some Republicans will come to the floor and explain this 
filibuster on college student loans. It is unfair to the students and 
to the families of our country. People definitely need a college 
education--many of them do--in order to succeed in life. Some need 
training. Even those who need skilled training may end up at a 
community college or taking a course that requires a loan to get 
through.
  I hope the Republicans who started this filibuster, who said we 
cannot even take up, consider, or debate the student loan interest rate 
issue, will be here tomorrow to explain why, to explain why they think 
this is not worth the time of the Senate to debate. Until then, we will 
just languish in this filibuster.


                             The DREAM Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was 11 years ago that I introduced a 
bill called the DREAM Act. Just this last week, I

[[Page 6113]]

was back in Chicago to attend a fundraising dinner for a group I really 
respect. It is called the Merit music program. About 20 years ago, when 
a lady passed away, she left a legacy to the Merit music program, and 
the legacy said that the money she was leaving and any money that was 
raised should go into the public schools of the city of Chicago to 
offer young people a free musical instrument and music lessons if they 
were interested.
  This program has been an amazing success. It turns out it has created 
an avenue and opportunity many young people never dreamed of having, 
and some of them have talents that are incredible. I was there at their 
dinner last week when the violinists came in--kids from all over the 
public schools of Chicago--and they did a magnificent job. They feel so 
good about themselves. They develop a talent, and they have a 100-
percent college placement rate from the Merit music program. There is a 
linkage there. I know the Senator from Colorado, who has taken over as 
our Presiding Officer, knows this, as he was an educator in the city of 
Denver. Many of these kids for the first time realize that they are 
worth something, that they can do something and do it well. And it is 
that confidence and pride that not only takes them through the 
experience of playing music but the experience of life and the 
experience of the classroom. It makes a big difference in their lives.
  Eleven years ago I got a call from the director of the program, Duffy 
Adelson. Duffy was there last week. Duffy is a wonderful woman who has 
committed her life to the Merit music program. She said: I have an 
issue. One of the students at the Merit music program is an amazing 
young girl who plays concert piano. She has been accepted at major 
music schools, including the Manhattan school of Music in New York. She 
is Korean. Her mother, when she was filling out the application for the 
Manhattan school of Music, came to the box that said ``citizenship, 
nationality.''
  The girl turned to her mother--her name is Teresa Lee--and said: USA, 
right?
  Her mom said: No. You see, I brought you here when you were 2 years 
old on a visitor's visa and I never filed any papers. Your dad is a 
citizen, I am a citizen, and your brother and sister, who were born 
here, are citizens, but we don't know what your status is.
  The daughter said: What are we going to do?
  She said: We will call Durbin.
  Well, first they called the Merit music program, and then Merit 
called me, and my staff found out that the law was clear. This young 
girl, who has spent 16 years in the United States, has to leave the 
United States for 10 years and then reapply to come back. She must 
leave for 10 years. That is the law. I thought to myself, the mom 
didn't file the papers. Mom did something wrong. Why would we not let 
this young woman do something right?
  So when I was drafting the DREAM Act, I said: If you graduate high 
school and you have no serious problems when it comes to convictions or 
moral issues and you either complete service in the military or 2 years 
in college, we will put you on a path--a long path--toward becoming 
legal and becoming a citizen. That is the DREAM Act.
  The DREAM Act has been here for 11 years. I have tried to pass it on 
the floor repeatedly. I can get 50-plus votes--I did the last time I 
called it--but the Senate has this magic number of 60, a supermajority. 
It has even passed the House of Representatives. But I have never been 
able to put 60 votes together here.
  Over the years, the support from the other side of the aisle has been 
decreasing. As it decreases, it gets more difficult. Over the years, as 
well, a lot of people have stepped up and spoken on behalf of this 
DREAM Act. Colin Powell said: We would love to have these young people 
in our military. Secretaries of Defense, such as Secretary Gates, said 
the same thing. President Obama was a cosponsor of the bill. These are 
young talented people who can make a difference. But before I tell you 
the story of one of them here, I want to tell you the end of the story 
of Teresa Lee.
  Teresa Lee attended the Manhattan school of Music and majored in 
concert piano. She met and married a young man who was an American 
citizen, and that made her legal in America. And she played at Carnegie 
Hall. How about that? Eleven years ago our government's law said she 
had to leave the country for 10 years. Instead, she came to the 
Manhattan School of Music, made it through, and has made a success of 
her life. There were a couple of people who stepped up and made sure 
that success was a reality in Chicago, and they were with the Merit 
music program. They had literally underwritten her college education 
because she couldn't qualify for any help--no Federal loans or grants, 
nothing--because she wasn't a citizen of the United States. This is a 
perfect example of a talent that would have been lost or wasted if she 
hadn't had good circumstances and if we don't have the DREAM Act for 
others who face the same thing.
  Let me tell another story about Ayded Reyes. This is a photo of Ayded 
Reyes. She is a runner. I learned about her from an article on 
ESPN.com. Ayded was brought to the United States from Mexico when she 
was 2 years old. She grew up in San Diego, CA. In high school, she was 
an honors student who played three sports and was an active volunteer 
in her community. Among other activities, Ayded volunteered at the 
Children's Hospital and Sherman Heights Community Center, where she 
tutored students and worked with the elderly. She was also a member of 
the National Honor Society and graduated from high school with a 3.98 
grade point average. This Senator wishes he could have had an average 
like that.
  Ayded was accepted at the University of California at San Diego, but 
she was unable to attend for financial reasons. Because she does not 
have legal status in the United States, Ayded is ineligible for Federal 
student loans or any other Federal aid. Instead, she attends 
Southwestern Community College, where she has flourished as a student 
athlete. She maintains a 3.50 grade point average, and her dream is to 
become an obstetrician. She has also become the top-ranked women's 
junior college cross-country runner in the State of California. Among 
other awards, she has been given Athlete of the Year at Southwestern 
College and Pacific Coast Athletic Conference Track and Field Athlete 
of the Year. Ayded has been offered athletic scholarships by more than 
a dozen top 4-year colleges, but she can't accept them because she is 
subject to deportation. She is not here legally.
  I have spoken to other students who have similar challenges, whose 
dreams can't be fulfilled unless we give them a chance. Just recently, 
I heard about a student who didn't know which way to turn, didn't know 
if the DREAM Act would ever pass, and applied for a visa to take his 
college education and go to work in Canada. The Canadians welcomed him. 
We need talent like that in Canada, they said. So they took him and we 
deported him. Are we a better nation for that? Who got the best of that 
bargain? A person who was educated in the United States, succeeded in 
the United States, and dreamed of being an American citizen is now 
living in Canada. To me, that is not the kind of thing we need to see 
in our country.
  As I said, just because the parents made the mistake, got something 
wrong, these young people should be given a chance to do something 
right.
  I am going to continue to work on passing the DREAM Act, and I hope I 
can appeal across the aisle to Republicans as well. Why is this a 
partisan issue? Don't we all believe we shouldn't punish a young person 
for the crimes or sins of their adult parent? That is what is at work 
here. It is a basic question of justice. These young people, such as 
Ayded, grew up in America pledging allegiance to the flag, believing 
this was their home. All they want is a chance to make their home--the 
home of their dreams--a better place.
  I hope my colleagues will take the time to meet some of the DREAMers. 
That is what they call themselves now. They have Web sites. They have 
stepped out into the light of day to introduce themselves to America. 
That is

[[Page 6114]]

our only hope for this passing, where people come to meet these young 
people and realize what amazing people they are. I think they will 
understand that giving them a chance is only fair, it is totally 
American, and it is something we should do as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, at this point I yield the floor and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to express deep concern on behalf 
of families and students all across Michigan who are very upset at the 
vote earlier today where we did not get enough votes--the supermajority 
needed to be able to get beyond the filibuster that is going on on the 
floor by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and therefore we 
can't actually get to the vote on the bill that would lower or maintain 
the lower student loan interest rates for students all across America 
and certainly in Michigan.
  We know what will happen July 1 if we can't get beyond this. We 
actually have a majority of Members, 53 Members. I am very proud that 
all of our Members on this side of the aisle voted, in fact, to support 
the effort to maintain the low student loan interest rate. We didn't 
have the supermajority because it takes bipartisan votes to be able to 
get there and overcome the filibuster on the other side of the aisle. 
But we have enough votes, and we just want to vote. We have enough 
votes to be able to pass this bill, the Stop the Student Loan Interest 
Rate Hike Act. We have enough votes, and we just need to have the 
opportunity to be able to vote.
  What does this mean for middle-class families and students in 
Michigan and all across the country? We are at a time when middle-class 
families are struggling to make ends meet and no more so than in 
Michigan, where we have gone through the deepest recession for the last 
decade of anyplace in the country. We need to be making college more 
affordable for Michigan students and students across America and their 
parents, not less affordable. We ought to be doing what will actually 
add to what we have done to support lower interest rates, more access 
to student loans, not taking that away, which is what is happening 
right now on the floor of the Senate because of the filibuster.
  Higher education costs are already rising. Michigan students are 
graduating with mountains of student debt while high school graduates 
are being priced out of the opportunity to be able to go to college. In 
fact, the average Michigan student is graduating with over $25,000 in 
student debt. That is a heck of a place to start when you come out of 
college and you are looking for a job and trying to get started in a 
professional life or trying to continue your professional life and at 
the same time support your family. That is a lot of money. And we 
should not be adding to that, because we are talking about additional 
debt on top of that $25,000 average if, in fact, we can't pass this 
bill.
  We have right now more than 300,000 Michigan students--those who have 
borrowed money because they believe in themselves, they believe in the 
future, and they want to get the skills and the degrees they need to be 
able to go into the workplace, to be successful for themselves and 
their families--300,000 students who are going to see their Stafford 
student loan interest rate double if we don't pass this bill.
  We need a sense of urgency, like every single family feels right now 
that finds themselves burdened by loans. They made the decision, and we 
have been supportive of that, making loans available and lowering the 
interest rate over the last several years so more people can go to 
college and be able to get the skills they need and be able to be 
successful in the workplace. We should be continuing to support that 
and doing even more to help them lower the cost, not allowing the 
student loan interest rate to double come July 1.
  Folks in Michigan are scratching their heads right now. Let me share 
stories I have received. I have received a lot of input, a lot of 
stories from people not only throughout today but before today, but 
certainly folks who watched the vote this afternoon are horrified at 
what this means personally to them, for their children or for their 
families. We have received a number of e-mails to our office, and I am 
very thankful to people who are sharing their stories. I would like to 
share just a few of them on the floor of the Senate.
  Liz from Traverse City wrote:

       PLEASE, please don't let them raise the interest rates on 
     student loans. I have two sons at MSU and I'm a single mom. I 
     work a full time and 2 part-time jobs and they work, and 
     without the Federal loans they wouldn't be able to go to 
     college--even with the full MET I worked on all their lives.

  So she put money into a Michigan program to be able to save money and 
put money aside. But this is somebody who is working one job and two 
part-time jobs on top of her full-time job, and her sons are working, 
and they still have student loans to be able to piece it together to be 
able to go to college.
  She said:

       Please help--our 3 person family is working very hard to 
     get through school.

  And I would suggest that they are. And, Liz, thank you for caring 
about your sons and working as hard as you are working.
  We need to make sure we don't add costs to Liz and her two sons in 
July. On top of everything they are doing to be able to create an 
opportunity for those two sons to be able to go to college, to be able 
to have a better life and a future for themselves, we shouldn't be 
adding costs to them.
  Lars from Ann Arbor wrote:

       As a student at the University of Michigan, I find it hard 
     to keep up with current events, but I try in earnest, and 
     this is an issue that affects me more than most others at 
     this time. I'm footing the bill for my college education 
     largely myself, as my mother and father--a high school art 
     teacher and GM retiree, respectively--do what they can to 
     help in the short term. I'd like you to work on behalf of 
     keeping the interest rates lower.

  So Lars is going to the University of Michigan--a great university--
and he is footing most of his college bill himself. His mom, a teacher, 
and his dad, a GM retiree, are doing what they can to help, but he has 
to have student loans. Why on Earth would we be adding to his costs 
come July when he is working very hard, with the support of his family, 
to be able to create a great life with a great education from a great 
university?
  Kasondra from Grand Blanc wrote:

       I am not what they consider a `typical' student. I am a 
     single mom of two obtaining my bachelor's degree in Social 
     Work. As a student and as a mother, I am attempting to lift 
     myself and my family out of poverty by doing the right thing, 
     getting a college education. While it has been tough and 
     there are days I wished I could give up, I am pursuing my 
     dream, and I will be graduating with honors in one year. If 
     the rate increase happens, I cannot afford paying back my 
     student loans while raising two children. Please, do not let 
     the interest rate expire on July 1.

  Kasondra, congratulations for all you are doing as a single mom of 
two, as you said, lifting your family out of poverty. We in Michigan 
are a tough bunch. We don't give up. But I know how hard it can be 
trying to hold it all together during these times, and I want to thank 
you for doing that. And you are absolutely right, it would really be 
outrageous to see the interest rate on your loans when you are 
graduating next year with honors--congratulations for that. But to be 
able to know that you are going to at least have the interest rate on 
your loans continue as they have been I know would be a relief and a 
help to you.
  Angelica from Ypsilanti wrote:

       My name is Angelica, I am a 40 year old mother of three who 
     has returned to school to finally get my degree. I have 
     recently been accepted at Eastern Michigan University and am 
     starting classes in June. Without affordable student loans I 
     would not be able to attend school. I want to make a positive 
     difference. Getting my degree will give me and my family a 
     better standard of living and get out of the terrible cycle 
     of poverty.

[[Page 6115]]

     This bill is critical to making the dream of higher education 
     a reality for Americans and ensuring our workforce is 
     prepared to compete in a 21st century global economy.

  Angelica, again, congratulations. As a mom of three, 40 years old, 
making the decision to go back to school, getting accepted, creating a 
plan for how you are going to be able to use student loans and be able 
to hold it all together financially as you are moving forward, it is 
really outrageous to think that there is a filibuster going on right 
now to stop us from voting on something that would help you.
  We have the votes. This is not about whether we have the votes to 
maintain the low interest rate. We have the votes. We are being blocked 
procedurally from getting to the vote, and that is something that is 
very hard for me to understand.
  Michael in Mount Pleasant wrote:

       I am a student at Central Michigan University studying 
     Information Technology and I am also putting myself through 
     school by whatever means possible. The amount of student loan 
     debt I will have to pay after a 4-year degree casts a looming 
     shadow. We are always taught to look toward the future and to 
     jump at any opportunity that presents itself as an 
     opportunity to better oneself. We as students are now looking 
     at a future filled with uncertainty. Please do whatever it 
     takes to do what you know is right, and save our future from 
     an impending financial defeat.

  Well, Michael, again working very hard, has a path, knows what he 
wants to do, puts a plan in place, like most students and most 
families, to figure out how he is going to be able to pay it both now 
in terms of the costs and paying back the student loans. And if we 
can't get a vote on this bill, we are pulling the rug out from under 
Michael.
  Jennifer in Michigan wrote:

       For me, it means I'll be very unlikely to finish grad 
     school. We say the US (especially Michigan) needs to invest 
     in technology, yet they want to do things like this that will 
     result in an uneducated society.

  Jennifer, I am with you. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, 
at a time when we know we have to outeducate and outinnovate to be able 
to outcompete in a global economy. Doing things that add costs for 
middle-class families, working families, to add costs for loans? You 
are bearing the brunt. You are getting a loan. You are believing in 
yourself and your future. We ought to be doing everything we can to 
support that, not adding more costs.
  That is unfortunately what will happen if we cannot get beyond this 
filibuster on the floor of the Senate, to have a real vote, a final 
vote. We have the votes. We are just being blocked from getting to the 
vote by the procedures of the Senate.
  Kathryn in Michigan:

       When I heard the interest for student loans is going to 
     double, my heart sank. How is this even possible? My daughter 
     is 21 years old, a psychology major at Western Michigan 
     University.

  That is another great university in Michigan.

       I am so very proud of her as any parent would be. With 
     interest rates set to double, how can these students possibly 
     even begin to think of paying these loans back? All this does 
     is discourage kids from going to college at all and once 
     again only the privileged will be allowed to succeed. Please 
     once again we need your help. There has to be a light at the 
     end of this dark tunnel for these kids and for our nation.

  ``There has to be a light at the end of this dark tunnel for these 
kids and for our nation.'' I could not agree more. We have to make sure 
the light they see is not from an oncoming train. We have to make sure 
the light they see is actually their way through the tunnel of debt 
that comes with college loans, and out into a future that is brighter 
for themselves, for their families. That is the hope, that is the 
promise of college education.
  We have a responsibility to make sure we are doing everything 
possible to support the hopes and dreams, the hard work, the sacrifice 
that is going on in college after college, in home after home, where 
people are making tough decisions in order to give their kids a 
brighter future.
  I was proud to help author the legislation in 2007 that cut the 
interest rate to where it is now, 3.4 percent. I was pleased to help 
lead the effort as well to reform the student loan program and expand 
college access. Those were good things to do--not bad things, good 
things. People have benefited. Three hundred thousand people in 
Michigan right now have benefited from that opportunity, the commitment 
we made to support young people, people going back to college, to have 
a brighter future through a college education.
  Now is not the time to turn that around. The Stop The Student Loan 
Interest Rate Hike Act is commonsense legislation. It does not add a 
dime to the deficit. It is fully paid for. It is something that needs 
to get done now so that there is certainty for families across Michigan 
and across the country. Education really is the road to opportunity in 
this great country and Michigan is home to world-class universities and 
community colleges. They are conducting cutting-edge high-tech research 
to help transform the economy. Our schools serve to open doors and 
create opportunities for thousands and thousands of graduates every 
year.
  I am always honored when I have the opportunity to speak at a 
graduation, as I have done this year, and to see the pride and relief 
on the faces of students who have worked so hard--and their parents, 
their pride and the commitment they make to their children. I know how 
that feels as a parent sitting in the audience as your kids graduate 
and walk across that stage with their diploma.
  This is ingrained in us as Americans. It is the foundation of who we 
are, to create an opportunity for people to go to school K-12 and then 
be able to have a chance to go on to college so they can have the best 
shot at success. That is what we have had as a foundation in terms of 
our values as a country. This is not the time to turn it back. We need 
to be making it easier, not harder, for students to achieve a college 
education which greatly improves their chances of getting a good-paying 
job and being successful in life.
  We are at a moment where we had a vote today where it was very clear 
we have enough votes to pass this bill, to make sure that student loan 
rates do not double. We have enough votes to pass it. We just do not 
have support from across the aisle, we do not have the bipartisan votes 
we need to get to a supermajority to stop the filibuster. That is what 
is going on right now. We need to vote. Folks do not have to agree with 
it. They can vote no on the final bill. Let us vote. On behalf of the 
people we represent, let us vote on the bill. On behalf of 300,000 
students and their families in Michigan, on behalf of hundreds of 
thousands of others who are looking for the opportunity to go to 
college, to be able to work hard and take all the risks that come with 
that to be able to have a better life, I ask we simply allow a vote. 
Let us vote on this bill.
  It is time to get on and let people know we get it, we understand 
what families are going through, we understand the squeeze middle-class 
families are going through on every front right now, and we will make 
sure that access to college, a higher education, is not just there for 
the wealthy and connected but that it is available to everybody because 
we are a stronger country because of that.
  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.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________