[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8152-8153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       MOTION TO PROCEED--S. 1003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: What bill are we on right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is under debate time prior to a 
vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1003.
  Mr. HARKIN. As I understand, there is 1 minute on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes equally divided.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will claim our first minute, obviously.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the bill before us now, like the House GOP 
bill, fails the first policy test of do no harm. It is worse for 
students over the long term than if we even let the rate double. These 
are CBO projections. If we, again, adopt the next bill which leaves the 
interest rates at 3.4 percent--that is this sign here--that is what 
students would pay in interest. If we let it double--this is the white 
line. If we adopt

[[Page 8153]]

the Republican bill, as you can see, in 2 years students will be paying 
more over the next 10 years in interest rates than if we even let it 
double.
  Here is the bottom line on it: If we keep the rates at 3.4 percent, a 
student who starts college next year, goes for 4 years, borrows the 
maximum of $19,000, will pay $3,510 in interest over 10 years. That is 
the life of a Stafford loan. If we adopt the Republicans' bill, that 
same student borrowing that same amount of money will pay $6,590 in 
interest over 10 years. This is the worst possible approach. You 
shouldn't reduce the deficit on the backs of students who can't even 
discharge this in bankruptcy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I urge a ``yes'' vote because this is a 
permanent solution for 100 percent of the student loans. It reduces 
rates for every single student's new loan. It has no profit on the 
student. It fixes the rate for the time of the loan, and it is the same 
idea as already passed by the House. It is the same idea as supported 
by the President's budget. There are only minor differences between the 
President, the House, and this proposal. If we can't agree on this, we 
can't agree on anything.
  This is a manufactured crisis. Their proposal is a short-term 
political fix for 40 percent of the loans. This proposal is a permanent 
solution for 100 percent of the loans that would lower rates to below 5 
percent; the same idea as in the President's budget, the same idea as 
passed by the House. I urge a ``yes'' vote.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. 1003, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 to reset interest rates for new student loans.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, Kelly 
           Ayotte, David Vitter, Thad Cochran, Orrin G. Hatch, 
           John Thune, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski, Michael B. 
           Enzi, John Barrasso, John McCain, Roger F. Wicker, Roy 
           Blunt, Johnny Isakson, Daniel Coats.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1003, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 to reset interest rates for new student loans, shall be brought 
to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Indiana (Mr. Coats).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 40, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coats
     McCaskill
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 
57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________