[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14705-14709]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               EQUAL PAY

  Mr. DURBIN. Yesterday we had a vote on a labor issue. This was a vote 
as to whether men and women in the workplace working the same jobs get 
the same pay. Most people would say: Well, isn't that the law already? 
Yes.
  Unfortunately, the law as written in 1963 with the Equal Pay Act 
isn't working very well. In a lot of workplaces women are paid less. In 
the State of Illinois, it is about 75 cents for every dollar paid to a 
man for most women unless you happen to be an African man and then it 
is 65 cents, or Hispanic, it is 65 cents. The actual working 
relationships in many businesses discriminate against women.
  We offered a bill yesterday to the Equal Pay Act brought to the floor 
by Senator Mikulski of Maryland and Senator Boxer of California. We 
asked if we could now revisit the Equal Pay Act to make sure it is 
enforceable and that it works so that literally if my son or my 
daughter ended up with the same job and the same workplace and the same 
work record, they would get the same pay. Not a radical idea by any 
measure. That was what we brought up for a vote yesterday.
  I took a look at the Congressional Record to refresh my memory and 
talked with the staff. Not one Republican Senator would vote for that 
bill--not one. There were 52 votes in favor of moving forward on this 
bill. All of them were from the Democratic side.
  So when I listen to these calls for reform when it comes to labor 
laws and bipartisanship when it comes to labor laws, my obvious 
question to my friends on the other side of the aisle is: Where were 
you yesterday? We had a chance here on the floor of the Senate to do 
something on a bipartisan basis for pay equity, equal pay for men and 
women in the workplace.
  This is not the first time we faced this issue. Lilly Ledbetter 
became somewhat legendary in America. This lady, whom I had the 
privilege to meet a few times, had a tough job. She worked at a tire 
manufacturing facility in Alabama. She worked hard for a long time. As 
she was nearing retirement, someone went up to her and said: Lilly, you 
have been a manager around here a lot of years, but they are paying you 
a heck of a lot less than the men who have the same job in this plant. 
She didn't quit.
  They don't publish the wages of all coworkers so that you would know 
this. She was upset about it. She spent all those years working there 
and she was being discriminated against because she was a woman. She 
filed a lawsuit, as she was entitled to under the law, saying that this 
was discriminatory and she was entitled to back pay for this 
discrimination.
  The Supreme Court, right across the street, threw out the lawsuit and 
said she didn't report this discrimination in a timely fashion. She 
didn't report that she was being paid less within a certain number of 
months, and her response was: How would I even know that? I don't know 
what that man who was the manager next to me is being paid any more 
than he knows what I am being paid.
  That is what the Supreme Court decided.
  The first bill that was signed into law by President Obama, the Lilly 
Ledbetter Act, said that Lilly Ledbetter and people like her at a 
future time would be allowed to sue for back wages if they were 
discriminated against.
  Very few, if any, Republicans supported this. When I hear speeches on 
the floor about reforming labor laws and the workplace laws in America, 
let's do it in a bipartisan fashion. When it got down to the real 
basics, S. 2199 yesterday, not a single Republican would join us, not 
one. I would think they would feel as we do. It is only fair. It is 
only fair that if you are in the workplace doing the same job, you get 
the same pay. Unfortunately, not one of them would. So when they call 
for reforming the National Labor Relations Board and they call for 
bipartisanship, I think it should start right here when it comes to 
legislation that comes before the Senate.
  I also listened to the Republican Senate leader come to the floor 
today and talk about the state of our economy. I wonder sometimes if 
Members of the Senate, who are entitled to their own opinions, should 
also be entitled to their own facts because what the Senator from 
Kentucky failed to note was the economy which President Obama inherited 
when he took office in January 2009. It was in sad shape.
  What a contrast from 8 years before when President Bill Clinton left 
office in January of 2001, 14 years ago. We had gone through a period 
of 4 straight years of Federal budget surplus. A Democratic President, 
4 straight years of Federal budget surplus, and President Clinton left 
to the new President, George W. Bush, a surplus in the next year's 
budget of $120 billion, if my memory serves me.
  The last time that happened, 4 straight years of surplus, had been 40 
years before. So here is Democratic President Clinton leaving office to 
President George W. Bush with a string of surpluses in the budget that 
we hadn't seen for four decades.
  In addition, President Clinton was taking the surplus and investing 
it in Social Security so that it was stronger than it had been in years 
because of the surpluses.
  During the period of the Clinton Presidency, 23 million new jobs were 
created in this country. Eight years, 23 million jobs, and government 
spending was still growing each year. Yet there were surpluses, job 
creation, and economic growth in the 8-year period of time.

[[Page 14706]]

  When President Clinton left office, the national debt that had been 
accumulated over the entire history of the United States totaled $5 
trillion. That was January of 2001. He handed that economy and that 
budget to President George W. Bush.
  Now fast forward 8 years. What did President George W. Bush hand to 
new President Barack Obama? One of the weakest economies America had 
seen since the Great Depression. The month President Obama took the 
oath of office in January of 2009, when he put his hand on the same 
Bible Abraham Lincoln used when he was sworn in as President, that 
month we lost nearly 800,000 jobs in America. That previous year, 
private employers had shed more than 4 million jobs. We know what 
happened to savings and retirement accounts. They were devastated by 
that recession. The economy was shrinking.
  In just 8 years, President George W. Bush took one of the strongest, 
fastest growing economies in American history and, sadly, turned it 
into an economic recession. How did he do it? Tax breaks for wealthy 
people and wars that were not paid for. Those were the two things that 
drove us from a $5 trillion debt when President Clinton left office--
cumulative debt in the history of America.
  When President George W. Bush left office, handing it over to 
President Obama, the national debt had broken $5 trillion to $12 
trillion. It more than doubled in the 8-year period of time. So 
President Obama had a challenge. Get the economy back on its feet.
  Right now, Public Television has a series on the Roosevelts. I have 
enjoyed it because Ken Burns is one of the best. He is telling the 
story of Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt.
  We remember what happened when Franklin Roosevelt came to office at 
the end of 1932 and the beginning of 1933, facing the Great Depression 
in America. He said: We have to get America back to work. That is what 
President Obama says. The stimulus package. Let's get back to work 
here. Let's put people earning paychecks into a position where they can 
save their homes and keep their families together and rebuild the 
economy. He got almost no help from the other side of the aisle.
  Remember the automobile industry. Remember what was happening in the 
automobile industry when President Obama took over office from 
President Bush. It was flat on its back. Two major companies, Chrysler 
and General Motors, were facing bankruptcy and even the prospect of 
going out of business.
  President Obama said: We cannot let this happen. There are too many 
good-paying jobs across America. He stepped in and helped by loaning 
money to these automobile companies to get back on their feet.
  Just last week I had some auto dealers from the Chicagoland area come 
to see me in my office. One said, Do you know what happened? We were 
selling about 9 million cars when the recession hit. Now we are back on 
our feet. We are up to 16 million a year. The automobile industry is 
coming back strong.
  I look at Illinois and I can see it in Belvidere where the Fiat 
Chrysler plant is working three shifts. I see it at the Ford plant on 
the South Side of Chicago. They are working three shifts as well.
  President Obama said: Let's get back to work. Let's save the auto 
industry. He did. Now they come to the floor and say: You know, it just 
hasn't been fast enough.
  When it came to the stimulus package, we had little or no support 
from the other side of the aisle. When it came to rebuilding my State 
of Illinois and across the country, it was resistance.
  Then comes the issue of health insurance. I want to say a word about 
that. I have voted for the Affordable Care Act. It may be one of the 
most important votes ever cast.
  I did it for personal reasons because I personally experienced with 
my family a moment when we had no health insurance.
  My wife and I got married very young. I was still in law school. God 
sent us a baby. She had some medical issues. We had no health 
insurance. I was going to school here at Georgetown Law School. I would 
leave class, pick up my wife and baby and go to the charity ward at 
Children's Hospital in Washington, DC.
  We were sitting in there with a number in my hand waiting to see who 
would walk through that door to be the doctor to save my baby's life. I 
had no health insurance. I have never felt more helpless as a husband 
and father than at that moment.
  I believe today, as I did then, that should never happen to any 
family. I believe this great Nation should provide basic health care 
for everyone living in this great Nation. That is why I voted for the 
Affordable Care Act.
  What has happened since? Eight million Americans are now insured 
under the Affordable Care Act. We have seen an 8-percent decline in 
uninsured people in my home State and many States.
  One of the most successful States when it comes to the Affordable 
Care Act happens to be the Commonwealth of Kentucky which the 
Republican Senate leader represents.
  They have signed up in substantial numbers. Hundreds of thousands of 
people in his State now have health insurance because the Affordable 
Care Act, which some characterize in a friendly or derogatory way as 
ObamaCare, has worked.
  What has it meant in Illinois? Some 640,000 people in Illinois now 
have insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. In a State of about 
13 million people, that is a substantial number, and 400,000 of them 
were low-wage workers who had no benefits in their job and now qualify 
for Medicaid. They have health insurance.
  I met one of them, Rich Romanowski. What a perfect Chicago name, 
right? Rich, a big barrel-chested Polish guy, is a musician. He has 
done part-time work all his life and he never had health insurance. Now 
he is in his sixties. Rich came to one of our press conferences, 
smacked his wallet, and said: I have a card in my wallet that says I 
have health insurance for the first time in my life.
  He is not the only one. He is one of 400,000 in my State, which means 
when they get sick and go to the hospital, their bills are not passed 
on to the rest of us, to all the people with insurance, to those who 
use Medicare. They have their own insurance now, and it means they are 
going to be healthier.
  I think of Judy. Judy works in Southern Illinois. She works in one of 
the motels that I stay in there, and she is a hospitality lady. When 
people go for breakfast, she is the one greeting us and showing us 
where to sit down. Judy is about 62 years old, a hard-working Southern 
Illinois lady and one of the sweetest people we would ever want to 
meet. Judy got health insurance for the first time because of the 
Affordable Care Act, and it is a good thing she did because she has 
just been diagnosed with diabetes. She needs good care because 
diabetes, if not treated right, can lead to serious complications: 
blindness, amputations. Judy has that health insurance.
  Remember when the government shut down last year, Senator Cruz of 
Texas came and read Dr. Seuss books to us. I came to the floor and said 
to him: You tell us you are shutting down the government to protest the 
Affordable Care Act. Well, what do you say about Judy? Judy, who has 
worked in Southern Illinois all her life, has no health insurance, 
needs it, and is now going to get it under Medicaid. Are you going to 
tell me we are going to do away with this law now and take away her 
health insurance? What would you say to her?
  Senator Cruz said on the record on the Senate floor: Judy needs to 
get a better job.
  I think many times folks in the Senate need to get the heck out of 
the Capitol, get out, meet the rest of America, and come to understand 
they are working hard every day, they are not getting paid a whole lot 
of money, and basic health insurance is beyond their reach, beyond 
their grasp. Well, the Affordable Care Act changed that, and we are not 
going back.
  The House has voted over 50 times to repeal that law, and I say that 
as long as Barack Obama is President, that is

[[Page 14707]]

not going to work. He is not going to let them do it. I am going to 
stand with him because I happen to be one of those persons who had a 
member of my family with a preexisting condition--the situation with my 
daughter.
  I know the kind of discrimination that people with preexisting 
conditions used to face before the Affordable Care Act. We are not 
going back to those days. This Senator and this President for sure, we 
are going to fight all the way to make sure that health insurance is 
there for those who are struggling in their work and there for families 
that would otherwise not have a chance.


            Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act

                           Student Loan Debt

  Mr. DURBIN. I spent much of my time over the August recess visiting 
college campuses and talking to current students and graduates about 
their student debt.
  I visited Northern Illinois University in De Kalb, Judson University 
in Elgin, and Lincoln Land Community College in Springfield, and 
University of Illinois at Chicago.
  With an estimated 1.7 million Illinoisans holding a combined $47 
billion in student loan debt, it is no wonder that it was on the minds 
of nearly everyone I spoke with. On average, Illinois graduates of the 
Class of 2012 left with $28,028 in debt--but individual debt is often 
much higher. I have had students contact me who have upwards of 
$100,000 in debt and no chance to ever pay it off.
  For too many young Illinoisans, and students across the country, the 
opportunity for a fair shot at an affordable college education has 
become a long shot. They do the right thing--they go to school to get 
ahead but end up with so much debt that it becomes impossible for them 
to ever pay it back let alone get ahead.
  I recently met Jessica Ibares at NIU.
  Jessica graduated from Northern Illinois and is now working as a 
financial aid counselor.
  How about that? She helps others figure out how to pay for their 
education, but struggles paying for her own.
  She holds almost $40,000 in Federal student loan debt that she'll 
have to start repaying in November. Working at a public institution, 
she makes a modest salary and will only be able to pay about $50 a 
month on her loan--which may not even cover the interest.
  How will she ever start repaying the principal? Jessica will find it 
difficult to get out of the debt she's in--and she went to a good, 
public school.


                             Dawn Thompson

  Imagine what students who went to predatory for-profit schools face.
  I recently met Dawn Thompson in Springfield. She is a 48 year old 
single mother of two.
  Dawn thought she was doing the right thing getting a paralegal degree 
from Everest College online. That is right, Everest College--one of the 
subsidiaries of the failed Corinthian Colleges chain.
  This disgraced company was caught falsifying job placement rates and 
collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. In the meantime, they left 
thousands of students in financial ruin with no real education to show 
for it, all the while making money hand over fist off of taxpayers.
  Dawn could never find a job in her field with her degree from 
Everest. She was over $100,000 in student loan debt, both Federal and 
private loans, and working a minimum wage job as a bank teller. Dawn 
tried to file for bankruptcy in 2013 and, you guessed it, her student 
loans were not dischargeable--one of the only debts that is not.
  At that point, she felt like her only option was to go back to school 
to hopefully improve her chances of getting a good-paying job and to 
defer her loans. Unfortunately, she went back to Everest--she started 
her Master's in business administration at Everest. Regardless of what 
happens with Everest as they end their reign of fraud, Dawn is likely 
to be stuck with her $100,000 plus student loan bill.
  Perhaps the only thing more sickening than Dawn's story, is that it's 
not unique. While the schools I visited were different, the borrower's 
personal backgrounds varied, and the amount they owed unique--the 
refrain over and over from these Illinois students was the same: 
``Senator, Washington has to help us.''
  My guess is that my colleagues heard the same thing from some of the 
40 million Americans in their States drowning in more than $1.2 
trillion in collective student loan debt.
  Well, Democrats have an answer that will help many of these 
students--it's called the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing 
Act. It would help an estimated 25 million current borrowers who are 
struggling to repay their Federal or private student loans refinance 
into lower federal interest rates--saving the average borrower $2,000 
over the life of the loan.
  In Illinois, an estimated 1.1 million of the 1.7 million with student 
debt could lower their interest rates under our bill--nearly two-thirds 
of all borrowers in my home State.
  Here is how it would work. Those with Federal loans could refinance 
into lower rates--the same rates available to students who took out 
loans last school year.
  Those with private loans--many of which have sky-high interest rates 
and very few protections for borrowers--could refinance into Federal 
loans with lower rates and stronger consumer protections.
  What's more, our bill is fully paid for.
  It assesses a modest tax on millionaires to help borrowers refinance 
and get back on a path of financial security--this is often referred to 
as the Buffet Rule.
  I am hopeful we will have a chance to vote again on this bill to help 
student borrowers.
  Earlier this summer, this bill was killed by 38 Republicans who voted 
against even moving to debate it. These Republicans were given a 
choice--side with working families and students seeking the American 
Dream or protect millionaires from paying a single penny more in taxes; 
side with 25 million Americans who could be helped by the bill or 
22,000 or so millionaire households who might have to pay more in taxes 
under the bill.
  Sadly, I don't have to tell you who those 38 Republican Senators 
picked.
  Americans across the country are talking about this issue--I have 
heard them. But, even so, in June, 38 Republicans said: ``The Senate 
can't talk about it.''
  It doesn't seem right to me.
  Thankfully, though, there were three Republicans--Senators Collins, 
Corker, Murkowski--who joined every Democrat to support moving the bill 
forward.
  But if the 38 Republicans who voted ``no'' have another chance, I 
hope they remember the struggling students and families they talked to 
back home over the August recess.


                            Economic Impacts

  I hope they realize that if we don't give struggling borrowers 
another option besides default, this student debt will haunt them for 
the rest of their lives and will have a drag on our economy. It already 
is. Experts tell us it is stagnating growth in the housing market, 
preventing business creation, and jeopardizing future retirement 
security for a generation of young Americans.


                               Conclusion

  I hope America's youth are paying close attention to this issue: how 
their Senators voted on this measure offers them the bare truth. I hope 
more of my Republican colleagues will join us to move forward this 
important piece of legislation if we get a chance to vote on it again.
  But for now, it shows the stark difference between those Senators who 
believe hard-working students deserve a fair shot at the American Dream 
and those who will stand by and do nothing as America's next generation 
is sentenced to debt.
  This afternoon my colleague Senator Warren is coming to the floor. 
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is a new Senator--and what a terrific 
addition to the Senate. She is the best. I have known her for years, 
and I encouraged her to run because I knew she would bring something 
special to the Senate.
  She has done it. She came up with a way for college students and 
their families to renegotiate student loans. People can renegotiate 
their auto loans;

[[Page 14708]]

they can renegotiate the mortgages on their homes. Why shouldn't 
students, those who have graduated, and their families who face student 
loan debt be able to renegotiate to a lower interest rate? That is the 
Warren bill.
  She is right. It is a big difference. It would bring down the 
interest rate on undergraduate loans, I think, to 3.8 percent. I run 
into students who are trying to pay off loans at 9 percent. Ask anybody 
who owns a home the difference between a 9-percent mortgage and a 3.8-
percent mortgage. They will tell you it is big. When someone makes a 
payment under a 3.8-percent interest rate, a lot more goes to reduce 
principal and you finally put that loan to rest after so many years. So 
Senator Warren is going to try again. We tried it once before but 
couldn't get the Republican support. I think we had three--maybe 
three--who voted with us on the Republican side. Under Senate rules we 
need 60.
  In my State of about 13 million, there are about 1.7 million people 
carrying student loan debt. They aren't all young people. They include 
parents who signed up for PLUS loans and even grandparents who wanted 
to help a grandson or a granddaughter get into college and go forward. 
They are carrying this debt. If Elizabeth Warren's bill passes to 
renegotiate college loans, it is going to save them--on average--$2,000 
apiece and give them a chance to reduce and retire that loan at an 
earlier stage.
  There is an interesting phenomena going on in Chicago now. I talked 
to some younger friends of mine and they said: If you have an apartment 
for rent in Chicago, and it is a good one, get there fast and sign up 
quickly.
  There is a land rush on to rent apartments. Why? Because younger 
people cannot even consider buying a condo or a little house. Why? Too 
much student debt. Student debt in America, cumulatively, is greater 
than credit card debt in America, cumulatively.
  More of these students graduating with the debt, paying it off, are 
making life decisions because of the debt. I have run into it: They 
studied to be a teacher but ended up with so much debt that they 
couldn't even consider it and had to take a better-paying job. We lost 
a good teacher because of student debt.
  Students are putting off getting married, putting off going out on 
their own, buying a car, and, if married, starting a family. I have 
heard it all. That is what this student debt is all about.
  When my colleagues come to the floor and say why don't we do 
something on a bipartisan basis, I say: This student debt isn't just a 
debt for Democratic students; it is a debt for all students.
  So let's come together when Elizabeth Warren makes her unanimous 
consent request this afternoon and finally do something for a change, 
for middle income and working families who want their kids to go to 
school but don't want them so deep in debt that their lives are changed 
or ruined. That is only reasonable.
  If we want to make sure that America continues to be a leader in the 
world, we need to graduate the very best with the education and 
training they need to lead our Nation. Some of them are holding back, 
holding back because of a fear of college debt.
  One other thing I will mention, college loans are different than 
other loans. I studied many years ago back in law school bankruptcy 
law, and we learn in bankruptcy law that most of the loans you take out 
in life are dischargeable in bankruptcy, which means if everything 
fails--you lose your job, you are in a situation where there is a 
serious pile of medical bills and you can't get back to work--in most 
cases you can go to bankruptcy court and through a long process those 
debts will be wiped out and give you a second chance in life. It is not 
an easy process. It is not something people rush to, but many people 
have no choice.
  If you did that with a college loan, it wouldn't help you a bit. 
College loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. They are with you 
for a lifetime. That is a sad reality. This is all the more reason to 
make sure those loans are affordable, all the more reason to support 
Elizabeth Warren when she talks about reducing these interest rates.


                            First Amendment

  The Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, today talked about the vote 
we had on a constitutional amendment. It was an amendment which didn't 
get the necessary votes; it needed 67. It didn't get the necessary 
votes on the Senate floor.
  Its sole purpose, offered by Senator Udall from New Mexico, was to 
reverse the Citizens United decision. That decision by the Supreme 
Court basically took off the caps and limits when it came to 
individuals and corporations putting as much money as they wanted to 
into the political process. One of my colleagues, Senator Kay Hagan of 
North Carolina, by her latest estimate has had more than $20 million of 
negative ads run against her in her home State--not by her opponent, 
not even by the North Carolina Republican Party but by these outside 
interests such as the Koch brothers.
  The Koch brothers in the last election cycle spent over $250 million 
of their own money. They are a bigger deal than most political parties 
now--these two brothers who are billionaires--and they are putting more 
money into this system. Sadly, many of the beneficiaries of the Koch 
brothers are walking behind them on a leash. They are being led around 
by them because you don't want to cross the Koch brothers.
  The amendment of Senator Udall of New Mexico would have finally given 
the States the authority to regulate the amount of money that could be 
spent on campaigns.
  It comes to this: If we want mere mortals to run for public office--
as opposed to multimillionaires--we have to get this playing field back 
under the control of the normal people. Maybe we won't have as many 
television ads to see--and I know how much people enjoy those--but at 
the end of the day we could still get our message across.
  I supported and actually introduced public financing laws. I still 
stand by them. We would be a better country if we had public financing, 
took the special interests out of the campaigns, shortened the 
campaigns, and had actual debates. Those sorts of things would get us 
back to what the country is all about and maybe start to restore some 
confidence in Congress, in our political system, and in both political 
parties--and we are all pretty low at this moment.
  So public financing is a right step but not likely to happen soon. Of 
this approach by Senator Udall to basically reverse the Citizens United 
decision, the other side argues it inhibits freedom of speech. Well, 
there is only so much speech that individuals can claim. The Koch 
brothers, because of their multimillions--and there are folks on the 
left, incidentally, spending a lot of money too--left and right--don't 
deserve to pick up a microphone or have a bigger voice in our political 
process.
  We have a lot of work to do. This week we are going to get down to 
business on a few things that are essential. I am sorry that yesterday 
the Republicans wouldn't help us when we wanted to pass pay equity and 
make sure that women were treated fairly in the workplace. We needed 
them, and they weren't there.
  That is disappointing, but it is an indication of where the two 
parties are today on that issue. They didn't support our efforts to 
increase the minimum wage. I support increasing the minimum wage.
  They haven't been able to help us when we come up with legislation to 
deal with college loans, but this afternoon they will have a second 
chance. I hope Elizabeth Warren's bill moves forward and that we end 
this week on a positive note for working families and their kids who 
want to go to school but don't want to be burdened with the debt that 
is going to change their lives.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 14709]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________