[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10985-10991]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

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


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Madam President, following my remarks and those of my 
Republican counterpart, the time until 11 a.m. will be equally divided 
and controlled, with the majority controlling the first half and the 
Republicans controlling the final half.
  At 11 a.m. the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider 
the nomination of Jennifer Dorsey to be U.S. district judge for the 
District of Nevada. At noon there will be a rollcall vote on 
confirmation of the Dorsey nomination. I would add that the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee has asked that we hold that vote open until 
12:30 p.m. today because they are having a confirmation hearing on the 
new Director of the FBI, Mr. Comey. We will do that, and the vote will 
end at 12:30 p.m. rather than 12:15 p.m. or 12:20 p.m.
  Following that vote, the Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 
p.m. for our weekly caucus meetings.
  In America, this great country of ours, a quality education is the 
surest path to the American dream. When I was a boy, we always looked 
at that American dream as getting a college education, which, from 
where I came from, wasn't going to happen very often. Now the American 
dream is more than just getting an associate's degree or a bachelor's 
degree. It involves many other occupations, all of the things available 
in health care now, such as nursing, nursing assistants, all of the 
technicians, the people who do physical therapy--not physical 
therapists but people who help doctors do what they need to do. We have 
programs to become a physician's assistant. There are many programs 
that are important to be able to fulfill that American dream. There are 
all different kinds of programs for computer training separate and 
apart from getting a bachelor's degree. Those programs are extremely 
important. The reason they are important is we as Americans have 
decided that with the cost of education skyrocketing as it is, students 
should get some help, whether they are seeking a degree in engineering 
or getting into a program to begin some computer training to have jobs 
they want for the rest of their lives.
  College has never been more expensive and further out of reach for 
American families. That is why it is critical that we keep interest 
rates low on Federal student loans so more promising students can 
realize their dream of an education.
  Last month Republicans rejected the Democrats' plan to freeze student 
loan interest rates at current levels for 2 years without adding a 
penny to the deficit. Because of this obstruction, loan rates doubled 
on July 1, piling thousands of dollars more on debt that more than 7 
million students owe. Republicans are instead pushing a plan to balance 
the budget on the backs of struggling students. But if either the 
legislation passed by House Republicans or the plan proposed by Senate 
Republicans becomes law, student loan rates will more than double over 
the next few years as interest rates increase.
  Speaker Boehner says that the House has acted and now the ball is in 
the Senate's court. We talked about that yesterday. What is he talking 
about--they have acted and now we should act? I guess we could talk 
about what they didn't do last year on the farm bill. I guess we could 
talk about what they didn't do last year on post offices. I guess we 
could talk about what they haven't done this year on the farm bill. We 
could talk about what they haven't done that is so devastating to small 
businesses around America, and that is having people who are online and 
don't build a single building, rent a single building--they get a 
different rate of return than do those in brick-and-mortar buildings. 
They do that because they don't have to pay sales tax. We could talk 
about why the Speaker is refusing to take up something that is 
meaningful.
  As I say about this student loan issue--and I just had a meeting that 
ended a few minutes ago--if you can explain to me why these proposals 
the Republicans have are better than just having the rates double, 
please do that. But they go into all these gyrations about whether it 
is a T-bill, overnight T-bill, or 30 days or 6 months or--all this 
complicated stuff, and it is factual. I met with someone from the White 
House. I said, OK, tell me what happens in 3 years. The response was, 
oh, well, the rates will be above 6.8 percent. That is appalling. If 
someone can show me how all these programs they are coming up with are 
better than just letting things double, tell me.
  We have a better proposal. Instead of pushing a plan to balance the 
budget on the backs of struggling students, I

[[Page 10986]]

think we should support a plan that would be better for students, not 
worse for students. I repeat, we can't support a plan that would be 
worse for students than doing nothing at all.
  They have to take action. The rising price of higher education means 
too many young people are deferring higher education. I hear all the 
stories. College education used to be cheaper. Well, because of what 
has happened here in Washington with the obstruction, we have to help 
people. There has been less support of higher education from the 
States. Tuition costs have risen significantly because of this. 
Students need help. We have to take action. The rising price of higher 
education means too many young people are deferring higher education, 
and it has saddled many who do get a degree with unsustainable debt--
debt that causes them to delay buying their first home, having 
children, or starting a business. Americans have more than $1 trillion 
in student loan debt. The average graduate owes more than $25,000. In 
fact, Americans have more student loan debt than credit card debt. They 
simply can't afford to pile on even more.
  We are going to continue to fight to keep the student loan rates low 
and hold back the rising price of education. Tomorrow the Senate will 
vote on whether to even begin debate on our plan to keep loan rates low 
for an additional year.
  I very much admire the work done by Senator Stabenow, the chairman of 
the Agriculture Committee. She is someone who is very effective in 
conveying a message. She has led the message for Democrats as to why we 
shouldn't let these rates double, and she will continue to do that.
  As I indicated earlier, we made a proposal to keep rates where they 
are for 2 years. We have made changes to our proposal in an effort to 
meet Republicans in the middle while protecting students. Our plan 
shortens the extension from 2 years to 1 year, and it doesn't add a 
penny to the debt.
  I spoke with the chairman of the Finance Committee today. I said: 
Max, explain how we are paying for this. It is so simple. It is 
inherited IRAs, that people would pay after 5 years--they wouldn't get 
the tax deduction after 5 years. What our program does is it closes 
this obscure tax loophole that allows a few very wealthy individuals to 
avoid paying taxes on inherited retirement accounts. This is why 
Senator Baucus came up with this as a pay-for.
  So I hope Senate Republicans won't block a second commonsense plan in 
investing in our economy by keeping college affordable. We have reduced 
it to 1 year from 2 years. It would be great if we had a long-term 
solution to this, but we can't do something that hurts students very 
quickly. Some have said: Well, it is going to be for a year or two, and 
there will be lower interest rates. Yes, but after that it will be 
``Katy, bar the door.'' We all know interest rates are going to go up.


                           Dorsey Nomination

  Before the lunch, as I have indicated, we will consider the 
nomination of Jennifer Dorsey to be U.S. district judge for the 
District of Nevada. She will be a valuable addition to the Federal 
court system. She is a Las Vegas native. Her father was stationed at 
Nellis Air Force Base and after Vietnam decided that was where he 
wanted to make his home. He started his family there.
  Ms. Dorsey graduated from Chaparral High School and graduated cum 
laude from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She was also the first 
member of her family to graduate from college. She served as a 
congressional intern for my friend and former colleague Senator Richard 
Bryan. She attended Pepperdine University School of Law, where she was 
a member of the Pepperdine Law Review.
  After graduation she returned to Las Vegas and excelled, first as an 
associate and now as a partner, at the firm Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, a 
longtime brave, proud Nevada law firm. She is the first and only female 
partner in that firm. She specialized in civil litigation, complex 
commercial disputes, appeals, and class actions.
  I am very impressed with her dedication to the State of Nevada, her 
community, and the legal profession. She will make an outstanding 
Federal judge for Nevada. I look forward to her confirmation.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                     Standing for Democratic Rights

  Mr. McCONNELL. Over the years we have seen repeated instances of 
indifference to the rule of law on the part of this administration. It 
is a consistent and worrisome path. The most recent example, of course, 
was last week's announcement that the President had simply decided not 
to enforce a major piece of his health care law--that is, until after 
the midterm election. What the President was saying in effect was that 
if he doesn't want to implement the law he has signed, he doesn't have 
to.
  I agree it is a terrible law. I understand why people harmed by it 
would want it changed. In fact, I think we ought to repeal it 
altogether and opt instead for real reforms that actually would lower 
costs. But the fact is--for now, at least--it is the law and it is the 
President's constitutional duty to enforce the law. Yet, instead of 
fulfilling this basic duty of his office, the President seems to 
believe he gets to decide who is subject to the law. He gets to decide 
who is subject to the law and who gets a pass. So last week businesses 
had their ObamaCare sentences delayed. Maybe next week it will be some 
other group, but it is his call. He will decide what the law is. He did 
it with immigration, he did it with welfare work requirements, and he 
did it with the NLRB when he took it upon himself to tell another 
branch of government when it was in recess. He is doing it again with 
his own signature health care law.
  Imagine that the current occupant of the White House was not 
President Obama but a Republican. Imagine that. Pretend that this 
Republican had come to office promising an era of inclusion and 
accountability, but as the years wore on he simply had grown tired of 
the democratic process.
  Imagine that this President, despite securing confirmation for nearly 
every nominee he submitted, couldn't understand why the elected Senate 
didn't simply rush them all through even quicker. He couldn't 
understand why Senators insisted on fulfilling their constitutional 
obligations to scrutinize each nominee.
  Visualize for a moment that this President decided to urge Members of 
his party to break the rules of the Senate so that he could appoint 
whomever he wanted regardless of checks and balances. Imagine the 
outrage in the media, online, and especially on the other side of the 
aisle. They would claim the President was a dictator. They would say he 
was ripping the Constitution to shreds, basically everything they said 
for so many years about President Bush. But, of course, President Obama 
isn't a Republican, and so Washington Democrats seem just fine with it. 
In fact, it appears they are even ready to help this President--
actually help him--in his partisan power grab.
  I know Washington Democrats are getting a lot of pressure from big 
labor bosses and from other far-left elements of their base to do this. 
These folks have told Democrats it is time to pay up, and they do not 
have much time for things such as the democratic process or the rule of 
law. They have raised a ton of money for the Democrats and now they 
want the special interest treatment they believe is owed to them. That 
is why we see the other side cooking up phony nomination fights. They 
are cooking up a phony nomination fight because they want to go 
nuclear, but they know the facts simply aren't on their side to justify 
doing so. They know their core argument, that President Obama's 
nominees are being treated less fairly than those of President Bush, is 
essentially at odds with reality. It is a complete fiction. They have 
gotten burned by the fact checkers already. President Obama's nominees 
for Secretary of Transportation and Energy were unanimously confirmed. 
Secretary of State?

[[Page 10987]]

Confirmed. Treasury? Confirmed. Interior, Defense, Commerce? Check, 
check, check.
  Already in this Congress the Senate has approved 27 of President 
Obama's lifetime appointments. That compares to just 10 at a comparable 
period in President Bush's second term. And, by the way, my party 
controlled the Senate at this point in President Bush's second term. He 
got 10, President Obama has 27. In other words, President Obama has 
just settled back into office and already he has secured nearly three 
times--three times--more comparable judicial confirmations.
  Look, to justify doing something as extreme as the left wants, you 
better be prepared to make a rock-solid case, and this is the best they 
can come up with, that we need to change the rules of the Senate 
because big labor bosses say so; that the left should be allowed to 
fundamentally change our democracy because the President is only 
getting nearly everything he wants--nearly everything he wants--rather 
than everything he wants at the exact moment he wants it? Let's get 
real here. This is not how a democracy functions.
  If this were a Republican President and the shoe were on the other 
foot, does anyone seriously believe Washington Democrats would be going 
along with something so utterly preposterous? Of course not. Remember, 
the current majority leader once said the nuclear option would ``ruin 
our country.'' That was said by the fellow who sits right over here, 
the current majority leader of the Senate. And a former Senator from 
Illinois named Obama said if the Senate broke the rules to change the 
rules ``the fighting, the bitterness and the gridlock [would] only get 
worse.'' Boy, he was right about that.
  What I am saying to President Obama and his friends on the far left 
is this: The facts show you are getting treated pretty darn well on 
nominations as it is. But if you would like more confirmed, if, for 
instance, you want the Senate to confirm your nominees to the NLRB, 
then don't send us nominees who have already been declared illegal by 
the courts. We have already said that is not going to happen. You know 
you can't look Americans in the eye and say you would vote for such a 
thing if you were in the minority so don't expect us to. But if you 
send us fresh picks, we will happily give them a fair hearing, just as 
we have been doing all along with all of the rest of the President's 
nominees. Almost all of them have been confirmed. Most have been 
confirmed almost unanimously, because we in America know that 
majorities of either party will never get absolutely everything they 
want. That push and pull is the hallmark of a healthy democracy. And 
one day--maybe not in the too-distant future--when our Democratic 
friends in the majority are invariably returned to the minority, they 
will thank us for standing up for those democratic rights.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

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


                           Order of Procedure

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first half.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today because tomorrow in the 
Senate Chamber we will vote on whether to let student interest rates 
double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This should not be 
controversial. This should have been done before July 1. Now we are 
trying to retroactively fix this.
  We have attempted to bring this to the floor and vote on it before on 
a number of occasions. We have seen a Republican filibuster blocking us 
from doing that. This week I am hopeful we can get the necessary 
bipartisan vote to overcome the filibuster and be able to send a very 
strong message to students across the country that we understand this 
is a huge issue for them and their families, a huge cost, and that 
raising the rates will only be another barrier to creating opportunity 
for students in the future and, frankly, having a middle class in this 
country.
  What is happening to the students and the debt involved is very 
serious, and it is stopping many young people from being able to move 
ahead and achieve their dreams. At a time when interest rates for 
everything else are at historic lows, why in the world would we double 
the interest rates for young people or older people going back to 
school who are trying to get an education and the work skills they 
need? Why would we allow that when we can get mortgage rates right now 
from 3\1/2\ to 4 percent or a car loan for about 4 percent? I could go 
on and on.
  Here is the shocking thing. If the rates are doubled--if in fact what 
kicked in on July 1 is allowed to stand--it will mean a huge profit for 
the Federal Government. That also makes no sense. It will mean some $50 
billion for the Federal Government, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office. Why should the government profit off the backs of 
students who are struggling to get an education so they can get ahead?
  We have a fundamental disagreement in this body between the majority 
of Democrats and the majority of Republicans on that question. It is a 
fundamental difference about what we should pick as a priority for our 
country. Frankly, for nearly 300,000 students in Michigan who will be 
forced to pay an extra $1,000 on their loans this year, it makes no 
sense.
  I remember growing up in a little town in northern Michigan, working 
hard, getting good grades in my small class of 93 people, being at the 
top of the class, and wanting to go to college. But my dad became very 
ill and we couldn't afford for me to go to school. I was the first one 
to get a college degree in my family. I managed to go to school because 
the State of Michigan and the Federal Government at that time placed a 
value on educating kids like me, who didn't have a lot of money but had 
worked hard and had good grades and thought we ought to have a shot. I 
had a tuition and fee scholarship, and so I was able to go to college.
  I put that scholarship together with working on campus and with 
student loans and I was able to get a bachelor's degree. I was then 
able to go on and get a master's degree and came out of school having 
to pay off the student loans. But because some folks--who didn't know 
this redheaded, freckle-faced kid from Clare--decided this was an 
important value for America, this was an important value for our State, 
I had a chance to work hard and follow the rules and make it. And who 
would have thought then I would have the opportunity to be here today?
  I want that same opportunity for every young person in Michigan and 
every person going back to school in this country. Fundamentally that 
is what this is about. It is not about numbers. It is not about 
numbers. It is about whether, when we subsidize all kinds of other 
things--banks, and even the farmers I fight for, to help them with 
their crop insurance, and subsidizing rates for insurance to do things 
because it is good for the economy--why in the world would we walk away 
from that most basic set of values when it comes to our students?
  Colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: Let's do something 
where we peg a rate. It is like a credit loan teaser rate. Sign up now 
at zero interest or 3 percent, let's put it there, and then over time 
it balloons like crazy and you are stuck. Those are the kinds of 
proposals we have gotten from the other side of the aisle. It sounds 
good now, but it is horrible later. I know a lot of folks who signed up 
for variable rate mortgages and balloon mortgages who ended up in the 
same situation. We are saying: No, we want a fixed rate. We want it low 
and we want to make sure students are placed as a priority.
  So after all kinds of negotiations, we have said: OK, you don't want 
to continue the rate for 2 years. Let's do this: Let's continue it for 
1 year at the low rate of 3.4 percent, and then let's all get together 
to figure out what to do about helping out with this $1 trillion

[[Page 10988]]

in student loan debt right now. That is the student loan debt across 
this country. We need to help them figure out how to refinance that 
lower rate and then we can deal with the long-term cost. That is what 
we are trying to do. It doesn't make sense, when student loan debt in 
the country is over $1 trillion, when students are already sacrificing 
and scraping together the money to get an education, to double the 
rates on those student loans.
  So when we look at this, we are looking not only at today but over 
time. In every proposal that has been put forward--and there are a lot 
of folks working, and I know there are conversations going on with 
folks who want to solve this problem--they all end up with the rates 
going up higher than even doubling the rate to 6.8. Why does that make 
any sense? Why would folks propose that? We have a fundamental 
difference in how we view this issue of the cost of college and whether 
there is a role for the Federal Government.
  Do we as a country have a stake in keeping costs as low as possible, 
interest rates as low as possible? I would argue, yes, we do. And if we 
want to stop subsidizing things, I can think of a whole long list of 
what we could stop subsidizing. We could stop subsidizing the top five 
wealthiest oil companies in the country, which have more profits than 
anyone in the world. We could stop subsidizing them. We could stop the 
loopholes that are taking our jobs overseas. We could stop doing that. 
There are a lot of things we could stop that would save money. We 
should not put all this on the backs of students. We should not say 
that somehow we should make a profit to pay down the debt on the backs 
of students, when in fact there are so many other areas where we should 
be asking people to chip in a little bit more, not those who are 
already working hard to get a basic education.
  We know we have to have a comprehensive approach, but until that work 
is done we should keep interest rates low. We should keep them where 
they are. And I have great confidence in Chairman Harkin and his 
committee, and Senator Jack Reed, who has taken so passionately the 
lead on this. Senator Kay Hagan and Senator Reed are our leaders on the 
bill we will be voting on tomorrow. Senator Warren, and so many 
others--Senator Boxer I know has spoken out so many times, as has 
Senator Sanders, and on and on, as well as the Presiding Officer. We 
all care passionately about creating a long-term solution for students 
that keeps costs low so we can keep dreams high and success high in 
achieving those dreams.
  I wish to thank so many for signing petitions and sharing their 
stories with us. I would urge folks to get involved in the conversation 
by joining us on Twitter, with the hash tag ``don't double my rate.'' 
There is a lot of conversation going on and information that folks can 
find out about what we are doing.
  I want to read two e-mails from constituents of mine. Corey, a 
student at Central Michigan University, sent me an e-mail about how 
this would make it difficult for him to continue his education.

       As one of the taxpayers that you represent, I am asking you 
     to please not allow my student loan rates to be doubled. I am 
     a hard-working and respectful student. I make all of my 
     payments. I go to class and do well. I work hard and am 
     grateful for the chance to get a higher education, but if 
     student loan rates go up I would be left to make a decision 
     whether or not school will be affordable.
       From the time we first start learning, we are encouraged to 
     attend college and get a good job so that we can be a part of 
     helping this country grow. I am simply asking you to help 
     continue to make this an affordable option for me, and many 
     others like me.

  That story can be replicated all across Michigan and all across the 
country: Will young people be able to stay in school? Will they be able 
to come out of school and get the job they want versus aiming for a job 
that relates to their ability to pay back their student loans?
  Then an e-mail from Matthew in Royal Oak:

       Students are not asking for a bailout like the one that 
     Wall Street got, just an opportunity to obtain an affordable 
     education so we can compete in the global economy.

  That is what this vote is about tomorrow. The Keep Student Loans 
Affordable Act simply says we are going to tackle this very serious 
issue for families across the country in two steps: keep the interest 
rates low where it is for a year, and then make a commitment to work 
together to fix the larger issue of the cost of college going forward.
  I don't think there is a more important issue for the future of 
maintaining or recreating a middle class in this country than making 
sure we can allow everyone who wants to go on to college and get the 
skills they need to be successful in tackling and meeting their dreams 
than to make sure that college is affordable. A big piece of that is 
the interest rate on the loans that millions of students are taking out 
right now and counting on us to make sure they are affordable.
  Tomorrow the question will be whether a filibuster continues on this 
issue. I think folks probably scratch their heads. We had a majority of 
people who voted--all Democrats--before to continue the interest rates 
at the current level of 3.4 percent. Because of the nature of the 
Senate and how things work, if there is an objection we have to go 
through this process to be able to overcome what is essentially a 
filibuster and we have to get 60 votes. So tomorrow we are going to 
have to get 60 votes, which means we need a handful of Republican 
colleagues to join with us to make a statement that we should continue 
interest rates at the low level while we work together in a bipartisan 
way to solve the long-term problem.
  We have over $1 trillion in this country in student loan debt. It is 
more than credit card debt. I was surprised to see that. We have to 
help families tackle that debt. I would like to see refinancing options 
when interest rates are so low, and many of those are much higher 
interest rates. We need to tackle that. We need to tackle the overall 
costs of going to college and what is happening for low-income students 
as well as middle-class students.
  There is a lot to get done, but it has to start by doing no harm. And 
that is the vote tomorrow: Do no harm. Let's make sure we at least keep 
the rates low now. We know there is a philosophical difference about 
whether we should actually help subsidize student loans. I think, of 
all the things we could subsidize, I would start with education.
  Tomorrow the question is, Do we do no harm? Do we keep the interest 
rate where it is while we work out a long-term solution? Do we make a 
very strong statement that if we are going to set something as a 
priority for this country, if we are going to outcompete and outeducate 
in a global economy, it has to start with making sure advanced higher 
education is affordable for everyone who wants to work hard and play by 
the rules and go to college?
  That is what the fight is about. That is what the vote is about 
tomorrow. I hope we will have an overwhelming bipartisan vote. If not, 
we are going to continue to do everything possible to tackle this issue 
because I think families across America are counting on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, over the July 4th recess I had the 
opportunity to talk with a number of young families about the crisis of 
student debt. Without exception, this is what they said: Please do not 
double the interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans from 3.4 to 6.8 
percent. Please make college financing more affordable, not more 
expensive.
  This is an issue which not only impacts millions of families, it 
impacts our entire future as a nation and our economy. Right now, 
working-class families all over this country are asking themselves a 
very simple question: Does it make sense for them to go $40,000, 
$50,000, $100,000 in debt in order to get a college education? Many of 
these young people and families are saying: No, it doesn't make sense.
  So in a competitive global economy, we are saying to families all 
over this country that we do not want their kids

[[Page 10989]]

to get a college education. We don't want them to become doctors, 
nurses, businesspeople, scientists, and teachers. We don't want them to 
expand their intellectual capabilities and make us a competitive nation 
in this highly competitive global economy.
  Now, if that makes sense to somebody, it surely does not make sense 
to me. The doubling of student loan interest only makes an existing 
crisis even worse. According to a report by the Consumer Financial 
Protection Agency, the total student loan debt in the United States now 
exceeds $1.1 trillion, which is nearly triple what it was in 2004. The 
average loan balance for American graduates has increased by 70 percent 
since 2004.
  Average student debt is near $27,000. In Vermont, it is even higher--
over $28,000.
  The burden of student loans is making it much harder for young people 
to get mortgages and buy homes. Home ownership rates for young adults 
are among the lowest in decades. Young people are putting off marriage 
and having children partly because of the burden of student debt.
  Over the last several months I have asked Vermonters--and people, in 
fact, all over the country--to send me their experiences, to tell me 
what this crushing debt of student loans means to their lives. We 
received over 700 responses from all over America. What I would like to 
do is very briefly read to you some of the responses I received from 
the State of Vermont.
  Emily Decker from Colchester, VT writes:

       Watching the interest eat away my savings every month is 
     hard to swallow. To the point where we are not saving any 
     money because we put anything extra toward my loans so we can 
     pay them back ASAP. This is putting our plans for having a 
     family on hold because we want to have our finances in better 
     order before doing so.

  In other words, Emily writes they are hesitating having kids because 
they can't afford to do so at the current time.
  Andrew Craft from Burlington, VT writes:

       I am a 25 year old full-time college student at Champlain 
     College. I am a single mother. I am already $20,000 in debt 
     and I still have one more year to go before I graduate. I am 
     currently at an internship working part-time on top of school 
     and parenting, but I often feel like I am not ever going to 
     be able to ``get ahead'' and ``make it'' in spite of my 
     advantages.

  Allison LaFlamme from Johnson, VT writes:

       I cannot refinance my house, because even though my cars, 
     home, and credit cards are perfect on my credit score our 
     debt to income is too high because of our student loans.

  Melissa Weber from Rutland, VT writes:

       I have found myself struggling to survive independently as 
     a 25 year old with a Master's Degree. Yes I have achieved a 
     degree, of which I am proud, but I have also accumulated an 
     immense amount of debt that will likely haunt me for the 
     majority of my life. As a result of my daunting loan payments 
     I find myself barely surviving on an income that should 
     easily support a small family.

  Evan Champagne from St. Albans, VT writes:

       My wife and I both have $50K-$60K of loan debt each. We 
     both have good jobs, but a large percentage of our income is 
     used to pay back student loans. There are no low interest 
     consolidation options available. If there were, that would 
     also help. The education process should be rewarding and 
     create opportunities. For my wife and I, it did the opposite.

  The American people want us to come together and solve this problem 
now, not make the situation worse. When we tell people who are 
struggling with these horrendous debts that the Stafford subsidized 
loan rate is going to double and there are proposals out there that 
make a bad situation worse, they respond in disbelief. They remember in 
2009 when Wall Street collapsed because of their greed and illegal 
behavior, we bailed them out. They understand that today we are 
providing large Wall Street institutions with interest rates of less 
than 1 percent. They are asking: If you can bail out Wall Street--
people whose greed caused the current recession--how come you can't 
protect working-class and middle-class families and enable their kids 
to get an affordable college education?
  The Republicans in the House passed a proposal. Unfortunately, it is 
a proposal which makes a bad situation worse. Under the House 
Republicans' proposal, all student loans would have variable interest 
rates, exposing graduates to market conditions. Even though the House 
Republicans' proposal caps interest rates, the Congressional Research 
Service estimates that students who take out the maximum subsidized 
student loan amount will pay nearly $6,000 more over the life of that 
loan than they would if rates are kept where they are today.
  The so-called bipartisan student loan bill being discussed in the 
Senate would also be a terrible deal for students, especially in the 
coming years. It provides no cap to protect students for the first time 
in the history of the student loan program. If this proposal were to 
pass, according to CBO projections of interest rates, by 2018 student 
loan rates will go up significantly.
  Short term, we have to keep student loan interest rates at 3.4 
percent. Long term, we need a national solution to make sure college is 
affordable for all Americans.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last week our Nation celebrated 
America's Independence Day, and the Obama administration took advantage 
of the holiday to slip out a couple of announcements about its health 
care law. The first one came late one day as the media and most of the 
Nation were distracted by their plans for the Fourth of July. The 
administration finally had to admit to all of America that their health 
care law is unraveling before their eyes. Several months ago Senator 
Baucus predicted that the law was headed for what he called a train 
wreck, and last week we saw the train go off the rails. What happened 
was the Treasury Department put out a blog post, written by an 
assistant secretary late in the day on July 2, that said it would 
postpone the implementation of the employer mandate part of the health 
care law until 2015.
  This was one of the signature parts of the President's health care 
law. Under the law, every employer with more than 50 people working 30 
hours or more a week was going to have to offer expensive government-
mandated health insurance. Now we have a 1-year delay of this extremely 
unpopular and damaging Washington mandate. Anytime you see the Obama 
administration leak news like that late in the day right before a 
holiday with the President out of the country, you can bet it is bad 
news for him and for them. Presidents do not delay things that are 
popular and that actually people want and like. When you see them try 
to hide it in a blog post, that is another sign. Here is what the New 
York Times said, front page:

       Crucial mandate delayed a year for health law.
       Large companies won't need to offer plans until 2015. GOP 
     seizes on shift.

  The Washington Post ran a headline, page 1:

       Health-care rule is delayed a year. A setback for Obama 
     law.

  The Wall Street Journal said:

       Health law penalties delayed.

  The Obama administration has tried to hide its bad news, but it 
failed. It also tried to spin the collapse of one of the law's most 
important features as good news. But as we see it here, Washington 
Post, ``A setback for Obama law.''
  The Treasury Department's blog post claimed it was implementing the 
law ``in a careful, thoughtful manner.'' If they were interested in 
careful and thoughtful, Washington Democrats never would have pushed 
through this reckless law in the first place, a law that many of them 
admit they never even read. Using that much Washington spin when it 
tries to sneak out bad news is another sure-fire sign that the White 
House is trying to hide the train wreck. The President and his 
supporters have been bragging about this part of the law for years. Now 
here they are quietly dropping it for a year and pretending things are 
going well for the law.

[[Page 10990]]

  What does this announcement mean? First of all, this is a clear 
admission that the President's health care law is unaffordable, 
unworkable, and unpopular. Second, it may be too late. Here is a 
headline from CNN Money yesterday. They wrote:

       For Fatburger and others, Obamacare delay came too late.

  The article says for many small businesses such as fast-foot 
franchises, they have already begun adjusting to the law's burdensome 
requirements. One business owner said the delay won't help his 
employees. He said:

       All it's doing is causing confusion, anxiety, and the 
     workers are paying the price.
       The workers are paying the price. Now the mandate's a 
     moving target. It's very, very challenging.

  For a lot of businesses, the adjustments they had to make included 
cutting back workers' hours. Let's look at the latest employment 
numbers released last Friday. In June, the number of people working 
part time--these are people who actually want to work more--soared by 
over 322,000. There are now 8.2 million Americans working part-time 
jobs because their hours were cut back or because they could not find 
full-time work. Republicans have been warning this would happen because 
of the Democrats' health care law and that is exactly what has been 
happening for months now. The White House admitted as much when it said 
employers needed relief from the logistical mess the law created.
  If the law makes it so bad for businesses that they can't handle it 
in 2014, I will tell you it is still going to be bad for them in 2015. 
If it is bad for employers, it is going to be bad for men and women on 
the street, the hard workers of America. When do they get relief? Will 
the administration now postpone the requirements that every man, woman, 
and child in America has to buy expensive government-mandated 
insurance? I hope they do. You can bet labor unions and other special 
interest groups are going to step up their lobbying to postpone the 
parts of the law that hurt them. Even the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
is asking for a waiver from portions of the law.
  Let me be clear. I think it is a good thing for employers that they 
will not have to face this job-killing mandate next year, but why 
should they have to face it at all? Is the Obama administration finally 
seeing the light on what a disaster it will be to implement or is it 
another gimmick? Well, as Ronald Reagan once said:

       They only come around on your side when they want to get 
     their hands on your wallet.

  This 1-year postponement is not a real solution. It is not designed 
to help job creators or taxpayers. It is designed to delay the train 
wreck until after the 2014 elections. This 1-year postponement, in my 
opinion, is a cynical political ploy to try to fool the voters one more 
time.
  Don't just take my word for it, because CNBC asked Peter Orszag about 
it the other day. People know he headed President Obama's Office of 
Management and Budget in the President's first term. He was a big 
proponent and supporter of the law. He told CNBC that White House 
officials ``by definition,'' he said, thought that delaying the 
employer mandate would help them politically ``or they wouldn't have 
done it.''
  ``By definition,'' therefore, they thought it would help them ``or 
they wouldn't have done it.''
  If they didn't expect it to help them politically, ``they wouldn't 
have done it.'' That is an incredible admission by a member of the 
Obama administration, his inside team. Just because the President 
thinks this is good for him politically doesn't mean it is good for the 
country.
  On Friday, the Obama administration also tried to sneak out another 
admission that its health care law is not working. Remember, even 
though employers have another year before their mandate kicks in, all 
the people still have to buy expensive Washington-approved, Washington-
mandated insurance and they have to do that by this upcoming January 1. 
To try to hide some of the costs, taxpayers are going to subsidize the 
higher premiums some people have to pay.
  The Wall Street Journal just last Monday:

       Insurance Costs Set For A Jolt. For the healthy, rates 
     could soar under new law.
       Insurance Costs Set For A Jolt.

  To try to hide some of the cost, taxpayers are going to subsidize the 
higher premiums some people would have to pay, but the prices are going 
to go up so high subsidies may cover some but not all. If someone 
wanted the subsidy, the government, of course, will have to verify 
those people deserve the subsidy.
  Not anymore, because now, under the administration's new policy, 
buried away in 606 pages of regulations, on Friday, they said nobody is 
going to check those answers.

       In an editorial yesterday, the Wall Street Journal called 
     these ``ObamaCare's liar subsidies.'' The paper agreed that 
     managing the law's rules and regulations was complicated:

  ``Yet,'' the editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote, ``this is the 
system Democrats installed when they passed the law, which is not 
supposed to be optional due to administrative incompetence.''
  Administrative incompetence is exactly what this is. It is also a 
recipe for rampant waste, fraud, and abuse. And it is an abuse in the 
taxpayer subsidies.
  I have criticized the complicated process the administration was 
setting up to verify people's subsidy applications. That is because I 
think it is a tremendous example of government overreach and because 
Washington bureaucrats at the IRS and other agencies have shown they 
can't be trusted with that kind of information. The solution now, 
apparently, is to scrap the verification system. We should be cutting 
the cost of insurance. That is what people wanted. That is why we had 
health care reform, to get down the cost of care, not driving up the 
costs, giving subsidies to a select few people and giving Washington 
more power to watch over the whole system. The American people do not 
need to put off the wreck until the train goes around one more bend. 
They want to stop the train wreck from happening at all.
  The American people want more than a temporary delay of one part of 
this terrible health care law. They want a permanent repeal of the 
whole thing. Now that the Obama administration has admitted its law is 
too complicated and would have too many negative side effects, it is 
time for it to set aside the political games and do what is best for 
the country. It is time to repeal this bad law and replace it with 
health care reform that will work.
  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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask my 
Democratic colleagues to take another look at the student loan issue 
that will be before us tomorrow. We are playing with real lives here. 
These are about 11 million students who are going to college in the 
fall. They will be taking out 18 million loans for this year. Taxpayers 
will be loaning them over $100 billion. The only proposal we are going 
to be voting on tomorrow appears to be one that will leave over 7 
million middle-income college students swinging in the wind, paying 
about twice as much in interest rates as they should be paying.
  At the same time, we have a proposal that is based upon a 
recommendation by President Obama that is like legislation already 
passed by the Republican House of Representatives that is supported by 
an Independent and two Democratic Senators and three Republican 
Senators that would lower student loan interest rates on every single 
one of the 18 million new loans that would be taken out next year and 
cut nearly in half the interest rates on loans for undergraduate 
students, which make up two-thirds of the loans.
  I ask the question, why would we do a 1-year political fix that only 
helps students taking 40 percent of the loans, when we have before us a 
bipartisan

[[Page 10991]]

proposal that is close to the idea of the President and the House that 
would help every single student, and especially why would we do that 
when we leave middle-income students twisting in the wind, paying 
hundreds of millions of dollars more in interest rate than they should 
be paying over the next 10 years?
  The student loan issue is becoming like what we call the doc fix, 
where Congress, for political reasons, every year rushes around and 
makes a temporary patch. There is no need to do that here, no need 
whatsoever.
  I ask my friends on the Democratic side to look at what the President 
has proposed and the reasoning behind it. It was in his budget. Look at 
what the House of Representatives has done. They actually passed a bill 
that lowers rates. Then look at the proposal by Senator Manchin, 
Senator Carper, Senator King, Senator Burr, Senator Coburn, and myself 
in the Senate. What our proposal would do is provide a long-term 
solution: if you are an undergraduate student at the University of 
Tennessee, instead of your rate being 6.8 percent, it would be 3.66 
percent. The Democratic proposal, I repeat, does nothing for over 7 
million middle-income students who are going to be paying 6.8 percent 
when they should be paying, if they are undergraduates, 3.66 percent 
under our proposal. That is nearly half as much. There is no need for 
that.
  This is like other political situations, we have some misinformation 
going back and forth across the aisle. I hope my colleagues will take a 
look at the Burr-Manchin proposal. The right thing for us to do is to 
say to these 10 million students, all of them, every single one of 
them, that when you go to take out your 18 million loans this year you 
are going to be paying a rate that is fair to taxpayers and fair to 
students. It is fair to taxpayers because it will not be costing the 
government any money and it is fair to students because the government 
will not be making any money. It will not be reducing the deficit on 
the back of the students. That is the principle upon which we can 
agree--fair to taxpayers, fair to students; doesn't cost the taxpayers, 
doesn't balance the budget on the backs of students. On that basis we 
can say to students: Take advantage of these low rates. You can get a 
10-year loan if you are an undergraduate at 3.66 percent. There is no 
need to pretend we are helping students when the alternative proposal 
only addresses 40 percent of the students. These are the subsidized 
loans. These are the loans for the low-income students, who already 
get, for the most part, Pell grants, who already have their interest 
paid while they are in school--that is a big subsidy. It is over $50 
billion in the next 10 years. We leave the middle-income students over 
7 million of them--over the next 10 years paying hundreds of millions 
of dollars they shouldn't be paying. I don't know why my friends on the 
other side want to leave the middle-income students of America twisting 
in the wind, paying higher interest rates than they should.
  So let's step back and look at the facts. Let's look at the 
President's proposal, look at what the House passed, and look at the 
bipartisan Burr-Manchin proposal. I respectfully urge the majority 
leader to allow us to vote on that. I urge my colleagues on the other 
side to coalesce around that idea. Let's say to the students of 
America: As the Senate, we know a good idea when we see one, and the 
Burr-Manchin proposal is such an idea.

                          ____________________