[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9840-9852]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   BANK ON STUDENT EMERGENCY LOAN REFINANCING ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2432, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 409, 
     S. 2432, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to 
     provide for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, 
     and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, will control 15 minutes, and the 
remaining time until 10 a.m. will be equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time? If no one yields time, then the time will be charged 
equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, could the Chair please let me know when 
I have 3 minutes remaining on my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I heard the majority leader's comments 
about the importance of moving on to the veterans bill, so I have a 
suggestion: Why don't we send this political stunt on student loans to 
the Senate education committee, where the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Harkin, and I are busy working in a bipartisan way to reauthorize 
higher education, and let's move on to the veterans bill immediately. 
Why should the Senate take a week on a political stunt that everybody 
here knows won't pass when veterans are standing in line at clinics, 
waiting for us to act on a bipartisan solution to their problems?
  It actually goes further in giving veterans more choices in health 
care than anything Congress has ever done. It actually begins to give 
veterans more choice in health care in the same way Congress gave them 
choices in higher education with the passage of the GI bill for 
veterans in 1944. Back then,

[[Page 9841]]

Congress said to the veterans: Here is the money. Go choose your 
college.
  Moving to and passing the veterans bill, Congress would be saying: If 
you have to stand in line too long or if you live too far away from a 
veterans facility, here is the money--go choose your medical care.
  That is a very important step for millions of veterans. It deals 
directly with the problems all Senators on both sides of the aisle are 
chagrined about--veterans standing in line waiting for health care.
  So I have one question: Why should the Senate spend a week on a 
political stunt? Why should we go all the way to next Monday before 
disposing of it? Let's dispose of it today. Let's send it to the 
committee that is already considering these issues, and let's move on 
to the veterans bill before noon. We could do that, and the veterans 
and the people of this country would respect us for it.
  I thought we had stopped the political stunts on student loans last 
year when the President, to his credit, worked with the Republican 
House and a bipartisan group in the Senate, and came to a result--a big 
result. It affects $100 billion of loans every year.
  Half the students in America have a grant or loan to help pay for 
college. Congress stopped this type of political stunt last year. 
Instead of every election year where someone comes forward offering 
some preposterous proposal about what we can do in the hope that 
students might vote for them--Congress stopped that by saying: Let's 
put a market-based pricing system on new student loans. The effect of 
that was to stop semi-annual political stunts, while lowering the 
interest rate on loans for undergraduates nearly in half. Undergraduate 
students are 85 percent of the students receiving federal loans. So a 
19-year-old student can get a loan to go to college at 3.86 percent 
without any credit rating and in some cases can get a grant of up to 
$5,645 to go to college. Congress did that last year.
  This year the Senate education committee has held 10 bipartisan 
hearings on higher education. This is a committee that knows how to 
work. Senator Harkin, the Senator from Iowa, and I have big ideological 
differences in our committee, but that doesn't stop us from working, 
from doing our job. We passed 19 bills out of our committee, and 10 of 
them have gone through the Senate and became law. No other committee in 
the Senate can say that. Right now we are working on this very subject 
of the political stunt.
  So why not stop the political stunt and put this where it belongs--
back in the committee that is already working on it in a bipartisan 
way. Let's focus on the veterans who are standing in line and do what 
the majority leader said, which is let's deal with that issue.
  Why do I say this student loan idea is not a serious proposal? It is 
not out of lack of respect to the sponsor. Of course I have great 
respect for her and for other Senators who are offering this proposal. 
But let me outline why I say this is not a serious proposal. And 
everybody in the Senate knows that. They know it is not going to pass. 
So why would the Senate waste time on it?
  No. 1, it does nothing--not one thing--for current or future 
students. For students who are in college today or will be tomorrow, 
this does nothing for them. So don't let the rhetoric fool you.
  No. 2, what does it do for people who used to be in college paying 
off a student loan? According to data supplied by the Congressional 
Research Service: It will give them $1 a day. For the typical former 
student who has old loans, this bill will give them a taxpayer subsidy 
of $1 a day to help pay their student loans.
  How big is that loan? For undergraduates--which are 85 percent of all 
students with loans--it is $21,600. For graduates with a 4-year degree, 
it is $27,000. So $27,000--probably the best investment a person will 
ever make. The College Board says that if you have a 4-year degree, 
your lifetime earnings will be $1 million more. So $27,000 for a 
student with no credit rating and has a right to borrow that earns you 
$1 million? I think that is a pretty good deal. In fact, this $27,000, 
is about the exact amount of the average car loan.
  So what are we going to do next week? Instead of dealing with lines 
of veterans at clinics, is somebody going to come on the floor and say: 
Well, people have a $27,000 car loan, so let's raise taxes and raise 
the debt and give them $1 a day to pay off their car loan or the 
mortgage loan or the credit card.
  This is not a serious proposal. It is not going to help people. 
College graduates don't need a dollar-a-day tax subsidy to pay off 
their loan. They need a job. They need a job, and right now they are 
experiencing the worst situation for finding a job that they have seen 
in a long time.
  Now Republicans have plans that would help create more jobs. We would 
like to do what the President said, which was give the President more 
trade authority so companies in the nation can sell more things in 
Europe and Asia, but, no, we cannot bring that up. We would like to 
approve the Keystone Pipeline, but, no, we cannot bring that up. We 
would like to repeal ObamaCare and particularly the parts that make it 
harder to create jobs, but, no, we don't want to talk about that. We 
would like to at least change the provision about part-time jobs from 
30 to 40 hours which affects millions of American workers, but, no, we 
cannot bring that up either.
  If the Senate wants to talk about students paying back loans, they 
don't need a dollar a day, they need a job. But my point is why should 
the Senate waste a week on this bill when veterans are standing in line 
waiting for us to take up and deal with a bipartisan proposal that the 
majority leader just described? What else is wrong with this student 
loan proposal? It could add up to $420 billion to the Federal debt. It 
does bring the money with it to eventually pay it off, we hope, but it 
adds to the debt. The Congressional Budget Office says national debt is 
rising at such a rate that interest payments will go from around $200 
billion up to around $800 billion in 10 years. Taxpayers will be 
spending more on interest in 10 years than on national defense. It 
increases individual income taxes $72 billion with what I call a class 
warfare tax. That tax has been rejected eight times by the United 
States Senate, seven times on a motion to proceed.
  There already is a way to lower your payments if you are a student 
with a loan and your monthly payments are too high. It is in the law. 
The President talked about it this week. It is called the income based 
repayment plan. It could lower monthly payments $60 more a month than 
the Democrat proposal if you are a typical undergraduate and $300 more 
a month if you are a typical graduate student. Former students can do 
that today. That is a bigger savings on monthly payments than in the 
proposal we are debating.
  In addition to that, if this proposal were to pass the Senate. It 
could not be sent to the House. It is unconstitutional. We cannot 
originate a tax in the Senate, according to the Constitution. So why 
would the Senate pass this if it cannot be sent to the House? Next, it 
violates the Budget Control Act. We passed a law that said we couldn't 
spend any more than X. This measure violates that act.
  So if it gives a dollar a day to pay off a $27,000 loan at a time 
when a college degree will earn people more than $1 million, if the 
loans for undergraduates are about the same as a car loan, if it raises 
the debt by $420 billion, if it raises taxes by $72 billion, if there 
already is a way in the law to lower monthly payments more than this 
proposal without raising taxes, without raising the debt, without 
passing the law that is unconstitutional--so even if it did pass, it 
cannot be sent to the House--if it violates the Budget Control Act, why 
would the Senate waste time on it when veterans are standing in line 
waiting for a bipartisan proposal to give them more choices for medical 
care? Why would we do that?
  Right behind the veterans bill are Senator Mikulski from Maryland and 
Senator Shelby from Alabama with a series of appropriations bills that 
have bipartisan support. They have been through committee too. We 
haven't passed appropriations bills in the last 4

[[Page 9842]]

years--two of those years we passed zero, one of those years we passed 
one. They are ready to do the job on both sides of the aisle.
  Why would we spend time on this if it doesn't deal with the real 
issue? Students with loans don't need a dollar a day to pay off the 
loan. They need a job. We have proposals for jobs. The real problems 
with student loans are complexities and over-borrowing. Ninety percent 
of the loans we read about in the paper that are over $100,000 are 
loans held by graduate students. But these are only 2 percent of the 
loans for all students.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. May I inform the Senator from 
Tennessee he has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. I will reserve 1 minute and I will 
do it in this way:
  Vote no. A ``no'' vote means no to a week-long political stunt, no to 
debt and taxes, and yes to moving today to a bipartisan solution to the 
problem of veterans standing in line at clinics; yes to appropriations 
bills that deal with cancer research and national defense and the other 
urgent needs of our country, also in a bipartisan way; yes to the way 
the Senate ought to run. It would mean no to the practice of pulling a 
bill out of your pocket, putting it on the floor, and wasting 1 week 
with a political stunt while veterans are standing in line at a clinic 
waiting for us to act.
  So I would suggest the right thing to do is to vote no, send the bill 
and the discussion about student loans to the education committee. We 
can work with the President on a solution just like last year, and 
let's move on to dealing with a bipartisan solution to veterans who are 
standing in line waiting for the Senate to act.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The senior Senator from Tennessee has summed it up 
quite accurately. I have been calling on the majority leader to press 
pause on his party's nonstop campaign so we can take up bipartisan 
legislation for a change, because there is a real crisis in the 
country. It is a scandal that demands the Senate's full attention.
  According to the Obama administration's own internal audit, its 
veterans scandal has now spread to more than three-quarters--three-
quarters--of the VA facilities that were surveyed. Nearly 100,000 
veterans continue to wait for care at VA centers and many of our 
veterans have been forced to wait 3 months or longer. Eighteen veterans 
have already died in Phoenix alone waiting for care that never came. 
This is a national disgrace.
  The President needs to nominate a capable leader and manager who 
possesses the skills, leadership ability, and determination to correct 
the failings of the VA, support thousands of VA workers who are 
committed to serving our veterans, and provide all of those who have 
served bravely with the timely care they have earned. He also needs to 
use the tools he already has to address the systemic failures of 
management in his administration, and he needs to use the new tools we 
can provide him with the legislation as well. We in this body have a 
responsibility to act and to do so with a sense of urgency.
  Yesterday the House passed bipartisan legislation unanimously--
unanimously--to help deal with this crisis. It is similar to the 
bipartisan Sanders-McCain bill right here in the Senate. It would 
increase patient choice, it would introduce some much needed 
accountability into the VA system, and it is past time to take up that 
kind of legislation in the Senate. Veterans have been made to wait long 
enough. Senate Democrats shouldn't be keeping them in the waiting room 
even longer.
  I know the majority leader and his Democratic colleagues would rather 
stick to their campaign playbook. We know they would rather talk about 
a bill they claim is about student loans, but the Senate Democrats' 
bill isn't about students at all. It is all about Senate Democrats 
because Senate Democrats don't actually want a solution for their 
students, they want an issue to campaign on to save their own hides 
this November.
  Recall that around this same time last year Republicans had to swoop 
in with a bipartisan piece of legislation to save students from a rate 
increase after Senate Democrats blew past the deadline, and Senator 
Alexander was right in the middle of that incredible and effective 
solution. Now Senate Democrats are pushing yet another--yet another--
student loan bill, one they actually hope will fail.
  I think Senate Democrats are in for a surprise. Americans are not 
going to fall for this spin because students can understand this bill 
will not make college more affordable, they understand it will not 
reduce the amount of money they have to borrow, and students know it 
will not do a thing--not a thing--to fix the economy that is depriving 
so many young Americans of the jobs they seek.
  Of course Senate Democrats understand all of these things too. Here 
is what the majority leader's lieutenant, the senior Senator from New 
York, said when he was asked a couple of years ago about student loans. 
He said that if Democrats had wanted to be ``political about this'' 
issue, they ``would have paid for it with'' the very same gimmick being 
used to pay for the bill before us today.
  I give the Senator from New York points for honesty. His words show 
without equivocation that Senate Democrats are now playing politics 
with the futures of young Americans instead of doing something about 
the VA crisis.
  So let's just accept the Senator's admission that his party's bill is 
truly about helping Democrats, not students, and let's move on to 
fixing the VA scandal instead. The time is now to turn away from 
designed-to-fail politicking and toward actual bipartisan solutions. 
Our constituents demand it and our veterans deserve it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you very much. We can do both the Sanders-McCain 
bill, the veterans bill, and we can do this, and there is a need for 
this.
  I was proud to join Senator Warren of Massachusetts in presenting the 
Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. I come from a State 
where we have the distinction of being fourth in the Nation in terms of 
level of debt that our students have when they graduate from college, 
over $30,000. Then we see people who come to graduate school with a lot 
more.
  I do college roundtables all the time. Kids are working 20, 30, 40 
hours a week while going to school. I have kids telling me they are 
giving blood while they are in school. We need to address this. This is 
only a part of what we need to do when talking about the costs of 
college, but why is it possible to refinance a home loan in this 
country, people are able to refinance their car loans, they are able to 
refinance a business loan, but they cannot refinance their student 
debt? That makes no sense.
  This has become a macroeconomic issue. Economists agree that because 
of the level of student debt--and if someone is paying 10 percent 
interest on it, it makes a huge difference--they are not able to save 
enough to put a downpayment on a house or they are not able to buy a 
car, they are not able to move out of their parents' house. This would 
help 550,000 Minnesotans--550,000 Minnesotans. That is 1 out of every 
10 Minnesotans.
  What pays for it is saying that people who make over $1 million a 
year would pay in income taxes what people making $60,000 a year pay. 
This is about fairness. We all know that in the last number of decades, 
and especially in the last number of years, virtually all new income 
has flowed to those at the top. The top 40 hedge fund managers make as 
much as 300,000 teachers. Why shouldn't they pay 30 percent on their 
income? Why not benefit the millions of Americans who have student debt 
and let them refinance their debt as we can with home loans, car loans, 
business loans?
  It just seems that this is a matter of fairness, and it is smart 
economics because economists agree that the $1.2

[[Page 9843]]

trillion in student debt has hurt this economy. It seems to make common 
sense.
  This is not political. It is not political if the other side votes 
for it. If the other side votes for it, then we can help millions and 
millions of Americans refinance debt just like other Americans can 
refinance their credit card debt or home debt. This makes too much 
sense, and it should not be political. It should be bipartisan.
  We should get to this, and then move on to the Sanders-McCain bill, 
which I cosponsored. I want to get on that. I want to be able to get on 
a lot of legislation. In this Congress we have sometimes seen--and in 
the last several Congresses--the minority do what it can to slow down 
the process and gum up the works here. I would love to get to the 
veterans bill immediately after passing this.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, which is 
currently pending before the Senate. This legislation would reduce 
student loan debt for millions of Americans and provide relief for 
those who are struggling to keep up with their payments.
  Student loan debt is exploding, and it threatens the stability of our 
young people and the future of our economy. The debt now totals $1.2 
trillion and it is growing bigger every single day. In 8 years the 
average student loan balance increased by 70 percent, and now 7 out of 
every 10 college seniors are dealing with student loan debt.
  This debt is crushing our young people and dragging down our economy 
by keeping borrowers from being able to buy homes, cars, and open small 
businesses. It is keeping them from making the purchases that get their 
economic lives started and help our economy grow.
  We must act now to provide relief for existing borrowers, and the 
Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act will do exactly that. 
The legislation is straightforward. It allows existing borrowers to 
reduce their debt by refinancing their high-interest loans to much 
lower--and much more manageable--levels.
  Depending on when they took out their student loans, millions of 
Americans are stuck in loans at 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent, and 
even higher. While interest rates are low, we propose to refinance 
those loans so that the old debt is at the same rates currently being 
offered to new student loan borrowers. These new rates are exactly the 
same rates that nearly every Republican in the House and Senate voted 
for just last summer as the fair rate for new student loans issued in 
2013 through 2014--3.6 percent for undergraduate loans and a little 
higher for graduate and parent loans. These new rates are still higher 
than what it costs the government to run its student loan program. But 
if these lower rates are good enough for new borrowers, they should be 
good enough for older borrowers too.
  Later today Senators will have a choice. They can move forward and 
debate this bill or they can filibuster it and prevent any 
consideration of this refinancing plan. Some Republicans have pointed 
out that the legislation doesn't solve every problem that we have in 
higher education. Well, that is true; refinancing will not fix 
everything that is broken in our higher education system.
  We need to bring down the cost of college, and we need more 
accountability for how schools spend their Federal dollars. Senator 
Reid, Senator Durbin, and I have a bill to do just that, and we welcome 
our Republican friends to join us on that bill. But we have another 
problem right now--student loan debt. Refinancing that debt is a 
straightforward way to ease that problem right now. We should do it 
right now. If Senators want to do more, they should offer amendments to 
that bill, but they should not block it from being considered.
  Some Republicans have expressed concern about the effect of student 
loan refinancing on the deficit. In fact, the bill is fully paid for 
and--according to official estimates from the Congressional Budget 
Office--it actually reduces the deficit, and that is because it is 
funded by stitching up the loophole in our Tax Code that allows some 
millionaires to pay lower tax rates than middle-class families. 
Investing in students and asking billionaires to pay their taxes seems 
pretty fair to me. If Senators want to pay for this in a different way, 
they should offer amendments to this bill, but they should not block it 
from being considered.
  Finally, some have argued that the financial benefit for our young 
people here is small. If Republicans would like to lower the interest 
rates even more, then count me in. That is what I would like to do. But 
let's be clear: 40 million borrowers in this country have student loan 
debt--40 million--and many of those individuals could save hundreds or 
even thousands of dollars a year under this proposal. That is real 
money back in the pockets of people who invested in their education. If 
Senators want to change those rates, they should offer amendments to 
the bill, but they should not block it from being considered.
  This should not be a partisan issue. Locking old borrowers into high 
interest rates just doesn't make any sense. The Federal Government 
should offer refinancing just like any other lender.
  This is not only about economics, it is also about our values. These 
young people saddled with student loan debt didn't go to the mall and 
run up charges on a credit card. They worked hard and learned new 
skills that will benefit this country and help us build a stronger 
America. They deserve a fair shot at an affordable education.
  Unfortunately, people struggling with student loans don't have the 
money to hire armies of lobbyists to argue their case on Capitol Hill, 
they don't have a super PAC, and they can't fund super secret political 
machines. But they have their voices, and they are making themselves 
heard. Over 700,000 people have signed petitions urging Congress to 
refinance student loans. Dozens of organizations have endorsed the 
bill--including student groups, colleges, and mortgage bankers.
  Senators have a choice to make today. They can move forward and 
debate this bill, they can acknowledge that the debt is crushing our 
families and do what we were sent here to do--address an economic 
emergency that threatens the financial futures of Americans and the 
stability of our economy--or they can block this bill from being 
considered. They can refuse even to debate this idea in order to 
protect tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. That is it--
billionaires or students, people who have already made it big or people 
who are working to build their futures.
  With this vote, we show the American people whom we work for in the 
Senate--billionaires or students. A vote on this legislation is a vote 
to give millions of young people a fair shot at building their future. 
Forty million students and their families are counting on us.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The question before the Senate is, Shall we spend the 
next week on a political stunt that gives some students $1 a day to pay 
off a student loan or shall we move to a bipartisan solution for 
veterans who are lined up at clinics and hospitals across the country 
in a way that shocks Senators on both sides of the aisle? That is the 
issue.
  The proposal before the Senate is not a serious proposal. There is 
nothing in it for current or future students. It is a

[[Page 9844]]

$1 a day subsidy to pay off a $27,000 loan. What are we going to do 
next week--raise taxes and raise the debt to pay off a $27,000 car 
loan, which is similar to the average loan debt of a graduate with a 4-
year degree?
  In addition, this could not even be sent to the House if it passed 
because it is unconstitutional. You can't start a tax in the Senate, 
and this has a big tax in it.
  The way we deal with these issues is the way we did it last year. We 
worked with the President in a bipartisan way and reduced rates for 
students.
  What we need to do today is vote no--no to the political stunt, and 
move immediately to the deal to help veterans standing in line at 
clinics and hospitals across the country.
  I urge the Senate to send this to the committee that is already 
working on it in a bipartisan way, and let's move to help the veterans 
in a bipartisan way.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.


                             cloture motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  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, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to calendar No. 409, S. 2432, a bill to amend the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for the refinancing 
     of certain Federal student loans.
         Harry Reid, Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jack Reed, Tom Harkin, 
           Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, Patty Murray, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Tom Udall, Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher 
           Murphy, Bill Nelson, Robert Menendez, Tammy Baldwin.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 409, S. 2432, a bill to amend the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for the refinancing of certain 
Federal student loans, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Scott).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Scott) would have voted ``nay.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Ayotte
     Cochran
     Graham
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Scott
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote the yeas are 56, the 
nays are 38.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on S. 2432.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is entered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I see no one seeking the floor at this time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Authorizing Use of the Rotunda

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 37.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent 
resolution by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Con. Res. 37) authorizing the use of the 
     rotunda of the United States Capitol in commemoration of the 
     Shimon Peres Congressional Gold Medal ceremony.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Con. Res. 37) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted 
Resolutions.'')
  Mr. REID. Madam President, this is a request to use the rotunda of 
the U.S. Capitol to give to Shimon Peres the Congressional Gold Medal. 
He is really a fine human being. I feel so fortunate to have had 
conversations with him over the years. I have such respect for this man 
who has been a leader in Israel for decade after decade. This is a man 
who always stood for peace, a man who has been so futuristic about what 
should be done in that part of the world. I look forward to this 
ceremony that will take place. He is now 90 years old. This is just my 
estimation: Very few people in the world have dedicated such valiant 
service to their country as this man has to the State of Israel.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk 
about some of the side effects we have been seeing from the health care 
law.
  When President Obama and Democrats in Congress were selling their 
health care law, they made a lot of promises. One of the big ones was 
that the health care law would save money. They said it was going to 
save money because people would be going to see physicians in offices 
for routine care instead of going to the emergency room.
  President Obama said:

       If everybody's got coverage, then they're not going to the 
     emergency room for treatment.

  Well, just like promises about keeping your doctor if you like your 
doctor or keeping your insurance if you like your insurance--promises 
the President made--it turns out the President's

[[Page 9845]]

claims about emergency room care weren't true either. That is what the 
Louisville Courier Journal says they have seen in the State of 
Kentucky. This was the headline on Monday, just a couple days ago: 
``More patients flocking to ERs under ObamaCare.'' That is not what the 
President said, but that was the headline.
  The article says:

       It wasn't supposed to work this way, but since the 
     Affordable Care Act took effect in January, Norton Hospital 
     has seen its packed emergency room become even more crowded, 
     with about 100 more patients a month.

  That is a 12-percent spike in the number of patients at the emergency 
room of that hospital in Louisville. As the article said, it wasn't 
supposed to happen that way, and that is why I come to the floor to 
talk about the side effects of the President's health care law.
  There are many side effects. They are harmful. They are expensive. 
Some are irreversible. But they are all related to promises made to the 
American people by a President who I don't believe fully understands 
his law. And I know there are many people in this body who voted for it 
who, I understand, never read it in the first place. Those are the 
concerns I have. Those are the concerns I hear at home in Wyoming every 
week, and I heard them this past weekend all around the Cowboy State.
  For the President, this emergency room situation may be just another 
surprising side effect of the health care law. And they are not seeing 
this just in Kentucky. According to a survey by the American College of 
Emergency Physicians, it is happening all across the country. Their 
survey found that 58 percent of emergency room doctors say they are 
seeing more patients since the beginning of the year. A doctor in 
Virginia told the Wall Street Journal that the health care law ``is 
going to stretch emergency doctors further, and that has implications 
on how quickly we can get people through.'' When the emergency rooms 
have more patients, it involves longer wait times for those patients.
  It seems the Democrats who voted for this health care law--many 
without reading it--were so focused on getting people insurance 
coverage that they came up with a system that actually makes it harder 
for people to get care. It was interesting listening to the President 
continuing to give speeches about coverage and ignoring the fact that 
people were worried about actually getting health care.
  That is a very dangerous side effect, but it is not the only side 
effect of the law. There are also incredibly expensive side effects of 
the health care law.
  There is an expensive side effect that a lot of people are starting 
to hear more about as States release information on insurance premiums 
for next year.
  Late last Friday the State of Maryland released their rates. We could 
tell it was going to be bad news for people in Maryland because they 
snuck the numbers out late Friday afternoon. It seems that is what 
happens when bad news comes out--they get it out late Friday afternoon. 
According to the Washington Post, the biggest insurance company in 
Maryland is CareFirst. This was in the Washington Post Metro section on 
Saturday, June 7: ``CareFirst seeks hefty premium increases.''
  The article says:

       Maryland's dominant insurance company, CareFirst, is 
     proposing hefty premium increases of 23 to 30 percent for 
     consumers buying individual plans next year under the federal 
     health care law.

  The President of the United States said the health care law was going 
to save families $2,500 a year by the end of his first term. But what 
we are seeing here--Metro section, Washington Post, Saturday: 
``CareFirst seeks hefty premium increases.''

       Maryland's dominant insurance company, CareFirst, is 
     proposing hefty premium increases of 23 to 30 percent for 
     consumers buying individual plans next year under the federal 
     health care law.

  That is a very costly side effect of the health care law.
  Remember, the health exchange--where people are supposed to buy this 
insurance in Maryland--was so broken that they had to start over again. 
State officials spent $118 million to set up their own exchange. Now 
they are going to use software from Connecticut's exchange. Nobody got 
care for that money. That is wasted taxpayer dollars. Nobody got care.
  Connecticut may have gotten the software right, but people there are 
going to have to pay more for insurance too. The Washington Post says 
that two insurance carriers in Connecticut have proposed rate increases 
averaging about 12 percent. That is the average. Some people will have 
smaller increases, but many people will pay much more.
  President Obama said Democrats in Congress should forcefully defend 
the law and be proud of it. That is what he said they should do--
forcefully defend and be proud. Are there any Democrats who are ready 
to come down to the floor and forcefully defend these dangerous side 
effects of more people going to the emergency room, stretching 
overworked emergency room doctors even thinner, making for longer wait 
times in emergency rooms? Are Democrats going to come to the floor and 
forcefully defend and be proud of the law when they see expensive side 
effects such as the hefty premium increases in Maryland of 23 to 30 
percent, 12 percent in Connecticut?
  It didn't have to be this way. Republicans offered ways to reform 
America's health care system back when we were debating the law, but 
President Obama and Democrats in Congress didn't want to hear it. We 
warned about some of these brutal side effects of the health care law 
that were going to hurt people, and we talked about bipartisan ideas 
that could have helped to maintain the access people had for the doctor 
they liked. That is what people want. They want the doctor they liked, 
and at the same time they want care to be more affordable. They want 
access to care, quality care, affordable care, not empty coverage, 
expensive coverage, which is what the President has provided.
  We are going to keep talking about measures that would expand access 
to health savings accounts to save money for families as well as for 
employers. I talked about that when some of us met with the President 
in 2010. The President didn't want to listen. It is too bad, but it is 
not too late.
  The Republicans are going to keep talking about letting consumers buy 
health insurance across State lines to increase competition, to let 
them shop for options they actually need, want, and will work for their 
family. That could actually help bring down prices, not drive them up 
as the Democrats' health care laws do. These are ideas Republicans have 
offered from the beginning, ways to give the American people care they 
need, from a doctor they choose, at lower costs. That is all people 
wanted in the beginning. Instead they got these harmful, hurtful, 
expensive side effects.
  We know what the American people have asked for. We know what they 
wanted, and that is what Republicans are going to continue to try to 
give them, not the empty promises from President Obama and Democrats 
who told the American people that the President and Democrats knew 
better what they needed or wanted than what the American people knew 
worked best for them and their families.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.


                          Veterans Health Care

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, I wish to say a few words as to where we are right 
now and my strong hope that we can move forward as rapidly as we can--
hopefully today--in addressing some of the very serious problems that 
exist within the Veterans' Administration.
  What I have learned since I have been chair of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee for the last year and a half is that the cost of war does not 
end when the last shots are fired and the last missiles are launched. 
The cost of war continues until the last veteran receives the care and 
the benefits he or she is entitled to and has earned on the 
battlefield. The cost of war is in fact extremely expensive in terms of 
human life and financially. That is something every American should 
know.

[[Page 9846]]

  It is very easy to vote to send people to war, but we have to 
understand what the costs of those wars are in terms of what happens to 
people who come home from them and in some cases do not come home. The 
cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is almost 7,000 dead. The cost of 
war from Iraq and Afghanistan alone is some 200,000 men and women 
coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain 
injury. The cost of war is too many young men and women coming home 
without their legs or their arms or their hearing or their eyesight. 
The cost of war is manifested by tragic suicides that are taking place 
all across this country. The cost of war is veterans coming home and 
finding it difficult to get reintegrated into their communities and get 
jobs and get their feet on the ground financially. The cost of war is 
high divorce rates and the impact that has on children. The cost of war 
is widows suddenly having to begin their lives anew. Those are some of 
the real costs of war.
  Last week Senator McCain and I hammered together a proposal to deal 
with the immediate crisis facing the VA. I thank him very much for 
coming forward, for working with me, and for understanding the need for 
us to move forward expeditiously. There are serious problems at the VA 
now and they must be addressed now--not next week, not next month but 
now.
  I thank the 27 bipartisan cosponsors who have agreed to sign on to 
this bill. There are 21 Democrats and 6 Republicans, and I think in 
fact the support is broader than that. I thank Senators Begich, 
Blumenthal, Booker, Burr, Casey, Collins, Coons, Hagan, Hirono, 
Isakson, Johanns, Kaine, Manchin, McCain, Merkley, Murphy, Pryor, 
Rubio, Schatz, Udall, Walsh, and Whitehouse for cosponsoring this 
legislation.
  Clearly, the bill Senator McCain and I introduced, which now has 27 
cosponsors from both parties, is not the bill he would have written 
alone, and it certainly is not the bill I would have written alone. It 
is a compromise. What this bill does is address the immediate crisis 
facing the VA of veterans having to wait too long a period of time--
long waiting lists--in order to get the quality care they need in a 
timely manner.
  What our veterans deserve is to be able to get into the system in a 
timely manner and get quality care. What this legislation does is move 
us forward strongly in that direction. Let me very briefly describe 
some of the major features in this legislation.
  There has been on the drawing boards for many years in some cases the 
need to build or expand VA medical and research facilities. This bill 
provides for 26 major medical facility leases in 26 States and Puerto 
Rico. That is something that is supported in a bipartisan way and has 
already passed the House in virtually a unanimous vote.
  This bill provides for the expedited hiring of VA doctors, nurses, 
and other health care providers and $500 million targeted to hire those 
providers with unobligated funds. The simple truth is that no medical 
program--not in the private sector, not in the VA, not anywhere--can 
provide quality care in a timely manner if that program does not have 
an adequate number of doctors, nurses, and other medical providers. It 
is unclear exactly how many more providers are needed, but there is no 
question there are many needed. I have heard--I will not swear to this, 
but I have heard estimates that in Phoenix alone there is a need for up 
to 500 new providers. While the Phoenix situation may be worse than 
other parts of the country, there is no doubt in my mind that many 
hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors and nurses are needed, and we 
need to expedite the hiring process.
  Importantly, what our legislation also does is say to veterans around 
the country that if they cannot get into a VA facility in a timely 
manner, they will be able to get the care they need outside of the VA 
from a private provider in their community. They will be able to go to 
a federally qualified health center in their community, an Indian 
Health Service or if there is a Department of Defense military base and 
they can get care there, they will be able to do that. This gives the 
veteran himself or herself the opportunity if that person cannot get 
timely care within the VA to go outside of the VA.
  What this bill also does is say to veterans who live 40 miles or more 
away from a VA facility if they choose--and it is clear there are some 
veterans that live hundreds of miles away in our rural areas from a VA 
facility--they will also be able to get care outside of the VA. For 
those veterans in rural areas this is an important provision.
  This legislation also addresses a major crisis that we have seen 
tragically in recent years within the DOD, within the military, and 
that is the issue of sexual assault. Far too many women and men have 
been sexually assaulted, and this legislation provides funding for the 
VA to provide improved care for those suffering from sexual assault.
  This bill also deals with an issue where I believe there is 
widespread support among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, and 
that is the need to address instate tuition for all veterans at public 
colleges and universities. This legislation also provides that 
surviving spouses of those who die in the line of duty will be eligible 
for the post-9/11 GI bill. This bill also establishes commissions to 
provide help to the VA in terms of improving scheduling capabilities 
and also their capital planning, two areas clearly where the VA needs 
to improve.
  Lastly, and it is very important, this bill gives the Secretary of 
the VA the authority to immediately fire incompetent employees and, 
even worse, those who have falsified or manipulated data in terms of 
waiting periods or in other instances. So what we say is if somebody 
has lied, has manipulated data, they are out tomorrow, after the bill 
is signed, but we also provide a very expedited appeals process in 
order to allow some due process.
  I worry very much about the politicalization of the VA if a Secretary 
comes in with a new President and says, I am going to get rid of 400 
top people and 4 years later another Secretary comes in and says, I am 
going to get rid of another 400 people. What we want in the VA, which 
is the largest integrated health care system in America, taking care of 
6.5 million veterans--one shouldn't care if those folks are 
Republicans, Democrats, progressives or conservatives--what we want are 
competent, able supervisors. I also want to make sure if people get 
fired that it has nothing to do with the color of their skin or sexual 
orientation.
  So we have an abbreviated appeals process, but within that appeals 
process somebody can be removed from their position immediately.
  The House of Representatives, as you know, passed legislation 
yesterday which covers a lot of the same ground the Sanders-McCain bill 
covers, and I applaud the House for moving forward in a very rapid 
fashion. I am absolutely confident that working with House Chairman 
Miller and Ranking Member Michaud, we can in fact bridge the 
differences that exist in the two bills and send to the President 
legislation he can sign as soon as possible.
  Finally, I wish to say a word to the some 300,000 employees who work 
at the VA. The overwhelming majority of these people are hardworking, 
honest, serious employees. In fact, many of them are veterans. My 
experience is that for many of these employees what they do is less of 
a job than a mission. They understand the sacrifices veterans have 
made, and they in the vast majority of cases are doing excellent work 
to support our veterans. Let us never forget that some 230,000 veterans 
today and tomorrow and the next day are going into the VA for health 
care and that the vast majority of those people--and that is 6.5 
million people a year--are receiving high-quality care.
  I have talked to veterans all over the State of Vermont, and what 
they tell me is that they get very good care. I obviously cannot speak 
for every veteran, but in Vermont--and I expect in most areas around 
this country--veterans feel good about the health care they get.
  A few weeks ago I held a hearing and asked all of the major veterans 
organizations point blank about their view on

[[Page 9847]]

VA health care. What they said--this is not what Bernie Sanders said; 
it is what they said--was that once people get into the system, the 
care is good. That is not just their view. There are independent 
studies out there that rate VA health care with private sector care, 
and oftentimes VA health care comes out better. Right now our job is to 
address the crisis of long waiting periods and making sure that 
veterans all over this country can get the care they need in a timely 
manner.
  In my State of Vermont--according to information that just came out 
the other day--some 98 percent of veterans get appointments in the 
system within 30 days. I suspect the numbers are similar in certain 
other parts of the country, although clearly not in all parts of the 
country. That is the issue we are addressing right now.
  It seems to me that our job now is to defend the veterans of this 
country who have defended us. It is time to move the Sanders-McCain 
legislation as quickly as we can--hopefully today. I know the majority 
leader, Senator Reid, feels strongly about this issue. He wants this 
legislation moved as quickly as possible, as do I, and I believe 
Senator McCain does as well.
  Once we get that legislation passed, I am confident we can set up a 
quick conference committee and resolve the differences between the 
House and Senate bills and get a bill to the President as early as next 
week.
  It is one thing to give great speeches on Memorial Day and Veterans 
Day about how much we love and respect veterans, but it is another for 
us to act expeditiously and effectively on behalf of veterans. Now is 
the time for action, and I hope very much we will have virtually 
unanimous support to move this important legislation forward.
  With that, 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Immigration Reform

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a topic of 
great importance to our country's security, economy, and social fabric, 
and that is our broken immigration system.
  No one can dispute that our system is broken. We do not yet have 
sufficient resources on our border or in our interior to prevent 
illegal immigration. And our legal immigration system takes far too 
long, has far too much bureaucratic redtape, and does not sufficiently 
serve our economic needs. In the meantime, our broken system has 
created millions of broken families. Many of these families are 
separated simply because of immigration status.
  All of these problems can be solved by passing immigration reform 
legislation. Immigration reform will jump-start our economy, reduce our 
national debt, secure our country, and heal these broken families. The 
truth is, we have heard excuse after excuse after excuse from House 
Republicans about why they have not put immigration reform legislation 
on the floor.
  First, it was that the Senate had to act first with broad bipartisan 
support. Well, that was taken away when the Senate passed bipartisan 
comprehensive reform legislation with 68 votes--a vote total which is 
virtually unprecedented for such important legislation.
  Then it was that the House could only pass measures under the Hastert 
rule, which meant that a majority of the Republicans in the House had 
to support a bill in order to get a vote. This excuse was also taken 
away when the House showed it could pass other legislation, such as the 
debt ceiling, Sandy relief, and the Violence Against Women Act, without 
needing to fulfill the Hastert rule.
  Then it was that the House could not pass one bill; it needed to 
break up the bill into component pieces. They thought this would be a 
deal killer. We said: Fine, we will work with you on the smaller pieces 
of immigration reform as long as all of the important pieces are 
addressed at or around the same time.
  Then it was lack of trust of the President. That too was a phony 
excuse given that the President has deported more individuals than any 
other President. But even here we said: If that is really your problem, 
let's pass a bill now and delay implementation until 2017. We will get 
the President out of this equation so he is not used as an excuse. The 
House had no answers for that suggestion.
  Now we have a new excuse. The excuse is that we supposedly cannot 
pass immigration reform because Eric Cantor lost his primary election. 
Well, just like all of the other excuses that have proven to be 
illusory, the idea that they cannot do immigration reform because Eric 
Cantor lost his election is another phony excuse for not passing 
immigration reform put together by those who willingly and unashamedly 
hand the leadership gavel on immigration to far-right extremists like 
Steve King.
  I want to be very clear about two things today. First, Eric Cantor 
was never the solution on immigration. He was always the problem. Every 
time I talked to Republican Members, business leaders, growers, and 
faith leaders about immigration reform in the last several months, I 
consistently heard that the House leadership wanted to move forward but 
they did not have Cantor's support. Cantor was the chokepoint for 
immigration reform for these past few months. Contrary to the 
conventional wisdom, Cantor's loss makes it easier--not harder--for 
House leadership to pass immigration reform.
  Secondly, the polling is clear. Eric Cantor did not lose his primary 
because of support for immigration reform. It has been widely reported 
that 72 percent of registered voters in Cantor's district polled on 
Tuesday said they either strongly or somewhat support immigration 
reform that would secure the borders, block employers from hiring those 
illegally, and allow undocumented residents without criminal 
backgrounds to gain legal status. And this is the case in one of the 
most conservative districts in Virginia and the country. The polling is 
consistent with other recent polling which shows support for 
immigration reform among a majority of Republicans and a plurality of 
tea party supporters across the country. Even 70 percent of Republicans 
in Cantor's district support reform. Again, to be clear, not even the 
majority of the farthest right segment of the Republican Party supports 
deportations and the current broken system. But that is what we still 
have in place today.
  So to repeat, Eric Cantor did not lose his primary yesterday because 
of immigration. He lost it because he had lost touch with the people in 
his district.
  The election shows the Republican Party has two paths it can take on 
immigration: the Graham path of showing leadership and solving a 
problem in a mainstream way, which leads to victory, or the Cantor path 
of trying to play both sides, which is a path to defeat.
  The lesson Republicans should take from last night is that embracing 
and showing leadership on immigration reform is a far better path to 
victory than running from it, particularly for Republicans who are not 
tea party members but mainstream conservatives. The example shown by 
Senator Graham is dispositive. Rather than trying to be all things to 
all people, he defended immigration reform strongly in his State and 
was rewarded by the people of South Carolina, the Republicans of South 
Carolina, which is an extremely Republican and conservative State.
  Senator Graham sat with us from day one and crafted an immigration 
reform bill that he could sell to the mainstream conservatives in South 
Carolina, and he was rewarded last night by his State for being a man 
of principle.
  One final thing about last night's election. David Brat won by 
receiving 36,000 votes in a Republican primary in rural Virginia in an 
election where 65,000 people showed up. The total population of the 
Cantor district is over 750,000 people, and there are 11 percent

[[Page 9848]]

more Republicans in the district than Democrats. For some context, in 
the 2012 election, Eric Cantor received 220,000 votes and his 
Democratic challenger 160,000 votes. The point here is that it would be 
a monumentally lame excuse for Republicans to say that our Nation's 
immigration policy should be dictated by the whims of less than 20 
percent of the Republican voters in a rural Virginia Republican 
district.
  So the time for excuses is over. The time for action is now. It has 
been nearly 1 year since the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive 
immigration reform legislation that would secure the border, turbo 
charge America's economic growth, and provide a chance to heal 
America's broken families who are being separated by our dysfunctional 
immigration system.
  For far too long, Republican House leaders have yielded the 
leadership gavel on immigration to the xenophobic leaders of the 
extreme far right of the party such as Steve King, who has previously 
described immigration as a ``slow-motion holocaust.''
  The question is whether House leadership will side with the Steve 
Kings and David Brats of the world or if they will side with the 
opinions of the vast majority of Republican voters and even the vast 
majority of voters in the Seventh Congressional District in Virginia.
  Time is running out. The window is now open for passing immigration 
reform legislation, and the clock is furiously ticking. We have less 
than 7 weeks to go to get something passed, and the time is now for 
Republicans to give us their proposals on fixing the broken system. I 
say 7 weeks because it is highly unlikely that immigration reform could 
pass during a Republican Presidential primary season, where the party 
leaders will have to move to the extreme right to try and capture the 
Presidential nomination.
  Therefore, it is time for the House leadership to declare 
unequivocally that immigration reform will be placed on the floor for a 
vote before the August recess. Without this declaration and the 
pressure to act, we will not be able to get immigration reform drafted 
and passed during this window.
  Make no mistake about it. If the House fails to act during this 
window--a clear indication that they have no inclination in solving the 
problem--the President would be more than justified in acting anytime 
after the summer is over to take whatever changes he feels are 
necessary to make our immigration system work better for those unfairly 
burdened by our broken immigration laws.
  But administrative relief is not what anyone wants to resort to. 
Those measures will be far too limited to fix all of the problems that 
currently plague our broken system. What we need right now is true 
leadership. Let's work together to get this done. A true leader will 
say: I will do what is good for my country--and for my party--even if 
it means that an extreme wing of my party will be unhappy. That is 
leadership. That is necessary.
  We stand ready to work with any of our Republican colleagues who want 
to achieve solutions in good faith. But for now, I will conclude by 
saying that immigration reform is both necessary and inevitable. It is 
necessary because it will secure our country, grow our economy, reduce 
our deficit, create new jobs, and provide us with the best and the 
brightest. It is inevitable because the population of voters who 
believe this is an important issue continues to grow and become more 
politically active day by day.
  So to my Republican friends, the choice is yours: Work with us on 
immigration reform this year and help the country now or do nothing and 
watch as immigration reform eventually passes without your support or 
your input. I hope we can act this year, but we will ultimately act. 
Let's hope we can finally do what is right before every other option 
has been tried.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, are we still in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to 
proceed to S. 2432, the student loan refinancing bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Student Loan Debt

  Mr. WARNER. I come to the floor disappointed that the Senate did not 
move to full consideration of the legislation that I know the Presiding 
Officer and others have worked on to take on the challenge that I 
believe will be the next great financial crisis our country will face--
student debt.
  Student debt, which is $1.2 trillion, now exceeds credit card debt, 
and that has been a PolitiFact out there and now validated. 
Increasingly, this crushing amount of student debt is slowing economic 
growth. It is not allowing young workers to go into the marketplace and 
buy a house or start a business.
  While I am disappointed that we were not able to move to full 
consideration of the legislation that would provide a more 
comprehensive ability for students to refinance at a lower rate, I 
would point out that there are a number of other tools we can use.
  I know I am going to be joined in a few moments--our paths may not 
completely cross here--by Senator Rubio. There are two pieces of 
legislation around this issue that Senator Rubio and I are working on 
together, and I want to speak briefly about both of those.
  The first is legislation we have actually been joined by Senator 
Wyden on as well called the Know Before You Go Act--a relatively simple 
concept using data that the U.S. Department of Education already 
collects. It says we ought to put together in a user-friendly Web site 
information for every parent and young student before they go off to 
college--whether it is a 4-year college, a 2-year college, or a 
community college--so they know, if they attend that university, what 
their chance of graduation is, how long it will take; if they choose to 
major in art history, the way my daughter did, what the chances are of 
getting a job and what that job would actually pay, so that we can make 
these people--young and not so young--better informed consumers. The 
cost of higher education--perhaps next to the purchase of a home--is 
the single largest investment most families will make.
  This legislation I have with Senator Rubio, the Know Before You Go 
Act--and Senator Wyden--would say that making these families and 
parents more informed will add value and make a more-informed consumer. 
It is simple, very little cost. We already collect this data, but we 
don't present this data in a format that is easily obtainable by 
families all across America.
  I know Senator Rubio is going to speak about the second piece of 
legislation, and I think Senator Rubio and I share a common background 
on this issue. I believe we are both first in our generation to have 
graduated from college. I was able to get through college and law 
school--being quite a bit older than Senator Rubio--through direct aid, 
through work during college and law school, but also through student 
loans, but I came out of that with only $15,000 in student debt.
  My personal story is that after working a bit in politics, I decided 
I would become an entrepreneur and proceeded to go off and start my own 
business, which within 6 weeks failed miserably. I then started a 
second enterprise that lasted a little longer; it lasted 6 months. My 
third enterprise was in the very early days of cell phones, and it 
managed to do pretty well, going on to cofound the company that became 
Nextel.
  But as I reflect upon that period, particularly when I was literally 
living out of my car and sleeping on friends' couches, I am not sure I 
would have had the courage to try once, twice, or three times if I was 
looking at the kind

[[Page 9849]]

of student debt that many--perhaps even some of these young pages here 
as they go on to college--might face if we don't take on this problem. 
It is not uncommon now for students--particularly if they complete 
graduate school--to see $70, $80, $100,000 in debt. The average student 
in Virginia comes out with about $30,000 in debt. We have to recognize 
that there should be a variety of tools available to them.
  Again, I wish we had proceeded with the full debate on the bill on 
having the comprehensive ability to refinance.
  One other piece of legislation, one other solution set--and I will be 
coming to the floor on a regular basis because I think there are a 
variety of ideas we need to lay out--a piece of legislation that 
Senator Rubio and I are working on together that we will be introducing 
is on simplifying into a single form a tool that already exists on 
student debt in terms of income-based repayment.
  Income-based repayment is a pretty simple idea. It says that if you 
get out of college or get out of graduate school--too many young people 
now are perhaps forced into careers that may not have been their 
initial choice, but because of the crushing amount of debt payments 
they have to make, they don't have the kind of freedom I had to go out, 
candidly, and fail a couple of times before I managed to be successful. 
Income-based repayment says we will graduate the amount of money you 
will pay back on your student debt based upon the income you make. So 
if at first you need to take that job that might pay a little lower 
because there is a chance you can pursue your dream or actually become 
an entrepreneur, we will allow you to tailor your repayment schedule 
based upon the income, and as your income goes up, your payments will 
go up.
  Rather than making income-based repayment kind of at the end of the 
line and very complicated to sort through, we simplify this approach, 
do it in a way that I believe is financially responsible, and do it in 
a way that gives that potential entrepreneur--the way I was--the chance 
to go out and take those risks, and if you are not successful at 
first--and can't leave out that 90 percent of entrepreneurs are not 
successful the first time they try a business--to make sure that you 
can maybe get that second shot, get that fair shot every American ought 
to have and not allow that student debt to be able to crush your 
dreams.
  Clearly in America in 2014, in a world that is a global economy that 
is based upon our knowledge skills to stay competitive, you shouldn't 
go broke in America if you choose to go to college or get a higher 
education.
  I believe these two pieces of legislation I am working on with 
Senator Rubio--the Know Before You Go Act, so you are more informed 
about your options going forward, and this income-based repayment--are 
two of the possible solutions that could be added to make sure everyone 
gets the same kind of fair shot that I know the Presiding Officer and 
my good friend the Senator from Maryland had and that we want to make 
sure all the future Americans have as well.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank Senator Warner for his leadership on this 
issue.
  The bills Senator Warner is bringing forward will help deal with the 
incredible burden American families are confronting today in order to 
get quality education. His story is a story told about the 
opportunities of America. Education is the great equalizer in this 
country.
  My grandparents came to America for a better life for their children. 
My parents benefited from education. They are products of the Baltimore 
City public school system and the public colleges and universities in 
the State of Maryland. As a result of the educational tools given to 
them, the grandson of those immigrants now serves in the Senate. That 
is the story of America. Education is the great equalizer.
  That is why we were so disappointed that we couldn't proceed with an 
important tool to make education more available to families; that is, 
the bill we just recently voted on to try to at least break the 
filibuster so that we could help those who currently have student 
loans.
  Education has been the great equalizer in a growing middle class, 
which has led to the strength of America. It has been key to global 
competition. We all talk about the fact that other countries are doing 
a better job in STEM education or catching up to America--in some cases 
surpassing America. Well, education is a great equalizer.
  We should make it easier for families to be able to afford a college 
education.
  The truth is that it is more expensive here than it is in other 
countries. Yet we expect our country to be able to compete globally.
  We are hurting ourselves. It is important for a growing economy, a 
growing middle class. Trained workers will strengthen America's 
economy, creating more jobs and more opportunity. So it is in our 
collective interests, not just that one family who is debating whether 
they are going to send their child to college or which college because 
of costs. It is in all of our interests to make it easier for Americans 
to afford a higher education.
  The cost of higher education today is just plain too expensive. It is 
just too costly. It is the single most important investment a family 
can make. Yet today college debt is around $1.2 trillion--greater than 
all of the credit card debt held by American families. Is that putting 
a priority on education? I don't think so. We can do a much better job.
  In Maryland, 776,000 students have Federal student loan debt totaling 
over $21 million. Over 50 percent of those graduating students are 
borrowing money in order to attend college, but here is the problem. 
For too many families it is a decision of whether they are going to 
college or not going to college--the cost. For too many families it is 
going to a school of their second, third, or fourth choice rather than 
the school they want to go to, and they are making that choice not 
because they couldn't get into the school they wanted but because they 
can't afford the school they want, their first choice.
  The debt they have when they leave college, it is clearly affecting 
their career choice. We may have a brilliant future researcher or a 
brilliant future teacher. What is more important than being a teacher? 
But they choose to go into a different profession because they have 
student loans, and they choose for immediate pay considerations for 
their jobs rather than the career they really want because they know it 
is not fair to their families to continue these large student debts 
with which they are graduating.
  That is the situation we confront. We know the numbers. I will tell 
you some real stories about real Marylanders.
  Last year I visited one of our 4-year colleges and had a roundtable 
discussion with students. There was a second-year student there. She 
told me she was going to drop out of school after her second year. This 
is, by the way, in a very challenged community.
  I said to her: I guess you are not doing well. She said: I am a 
straight-A student. I love the opportunities I am being given here. I 
love the knowledge I am getting, but I can't do it to my family to 
incur more debt. I look at my classmates from high school who have 
graduated and they are making money for their family and here I am a 
burden to my family by incurring more debt. I can't do it. I don't know 
where I am going to be 2 years from now, but I know I can't do this to 
my family. So I have to go out and work. I can't incur more debt.
  That is a loss for that student and for our community.
  I met another student named Becky last week at one of our Southern 
Maryland colleges. She told me the story about wanting to become a 
pediatric dentist. She is brilliant. She is doing great. But Becky is 
working full time and going to college. She is not going to be able to 
go to her first choice. She has her first choice, but she is not going 
to be able to do that because she is working full time and incurring 
debt in order to go to college. So it is going to take her a lot 
longer. She is not going to get through undergraduate in

[[Page 9850]]

4 years. It is going to take her 5 years or 6 years to get through, and 
whether she will ever become the pediatric dentist she wants to be, I 
don't know.
  That is what is happening in America today, and millions of others 
can tell you similar stories of career decisions they have made, giving 
up the most important investment in their life because of the financial 
considerations. The bill we have on the floor right now can do 
something about it.
  I would be the first to acknowledge there is a lot we could do to 
help in this regard, but I thank Senator Warren for her leadership in 
bringing forward a bill that will make a difference for millions of 
students who hold debt. It will make it less costly for them to take 
out the loans they have taken out. It would affect millions of 
students.
  I think Americans would be upset, disappointed, and outraged to learn 
the Federal Government is making money off of student loans. The 
interest rates are higher than what the cost of the student loan is. 
Taking into consideration defaults, taking into consideration 
administrative costs, taking into consideration the cost of borrowing, 
between 2007 and 2012 $66 billion was made off the backs of students 
who can't afford the loans they currently have.
  What Senator Warren's bill does is allow those who hold student debt 
to refinance and take advantage of lower interest rates. It is not 
going to be subsidized loans. There will be no cost to the taxpayers to 
do this. This seems like a no-brainer, quite frankly. It would make it 
easier for them. We let homeowners refinance their mortgages and we 
passed special legislation to allow that. We allow businesses to 
refinance their loans to the lowest competitive rate. Why can't 
students do this? That is what the bill before us does. It lets us move 
forward at no cost because we are not subsidizing the loans.
  Just because of our unusual scoring reasons here, she provides an 
offset, which I don't think is necessary, but I certainly support the 
bill, and the offset is certainly one that has millionaires paying 
their fair share and it makes sense. So this will save thousands of 
dollars for those who currently holds loans. That is important.
  Some say: Don't we need more accountability from higher education? 
Yes, we do. Don't we need more transparency from higher education? Yes, 
we do. Don't we need to have better consumer information? Yes. I agree 
with all of the above, but today we can do something about the interest 
costs and correct an injustice of government, making money off of 
student loans, and do this in a way that makes it more affordable for 
families. We can do something that truly helps. It will provide help to 
families.
  President Obama has acted. I thank him for doing that. Five million 
families will benefit from his Executive order or clarification which 
says no more than 10 percent of your income will be used to pay student 
loans and caps the number of years. That is going to help. He is also 
doing more to promote awareness of repayment options. That is good, but 
we in Congress have an opportunity to act and act today.
  I hope we get bipartisan support to help middle-income families and 
to help our country. I urge my colleagues to allow us to get on the 
bill and to pay to help the middle class of America.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. 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. RUBIO. Madam President, in a few moments I will yield the floor 
to my colleagues who will have an announcement about the progress which 
has been made on the veterans bill, an important issue.
  I wish to take this moment to talk about a tale of two bills--a tale 
of two very critical issues that confront our country, both deserving 
of the time and attention of the Senate but how they have been treated 
very differently from one another.
  The first issue is one which has been talked about here; that is, the 
issue of student loans in America. This is an issue I care about deeply 
for two reasons.
  The first is, when I arrived on the floor of the Senate in January of 
2011, I owed over $100,000 in student loans. For years we struggled 
with the cost of those loans. My parents never made enough money to 
save for our education, but I was able to pay for it through a 
combination of Pell grants and loans for my undergraduate and graduate 
studies. The undergraduate-level loans were manageable. The graduate-
level loans for law school were quite a strain. At one point in our 
lives it was the single highest expenditure in our monthly budget. So I 
know the cost of this.
  The other reason is because I have the honor of serving as an adjunct 
professor at Florida International University, where once or twice a 
week I interact with young men and women in South Florida who are 
facing not just the cost of undergraduate education but starting to 
think about how they are going to pay to go to law school or get a 
master's degree or any other profession they choose. This is a very 
significant issue, and there are two aspects of it that we are going to 
talk about in a moment.
  The second issue that is critically important for our country is the 
well-documented problems of the Veterans' Administration. I don't need 
to go into a long dissertation about how our men and women who have 
served us so honorably and so bravely in uniform deserve the very best 
care possible.
  Well documented are the long waiting lists and, even more tragically, 
efforts among some at the VA to cover up all of this, to cover their 
tracks and to cover up their incompetence. The vast majority of the men 
and women who work at the VA work hard and do a good job, but there are 
too many who do not, and there is not enough accountability with regard 
to that. As I said a couple of weeks ago when I came to the floor and 
tried to pass a measure, a companion of the issue that passed in the 
House: You are more likely to get a promotion or bonus than you are to 
get demoted or fired for not doing your job at the VA.
  Two very important issues: a tale of two bills because they have been 
handled so differently.
  I anticipate in a moment a number of Senators will come to the 
floor--Senators whom I thank for allowing me to work with them to make 
this possible--and will have an announcement to make with regard to 
votes on the veterans bill. That is great news. The men and women who 
have served us deserve this progress.
  There is no claim that this is going to solve every problem in the 
world, but it is an important first step. I thank Senators McCain, 
Sanders, Burr, Coburn, and others for all the work they have done on 
this issue. We are excited to hear about their announcement in a few 
moments. If they arrive, I will gladly yield the floor for them to do 
that at the appropriate moment. I thank them, our men and women who 
have served us thank them, and the people of Florida thank them. We are 
a State with an enormous number of veterans.
  This is an important issue, and I wish people could have seen the 
effort and how people worked across party lines to get this done. 
Everyone has great ideas about things they want to see added to it, 
about things they would like to see in addition to what has been 
included, but we all understand a sense of urgency about addressing 
this issue. We all had ideas we wanted to pursue, but we were all 
willing to put those aside for another debate and another day in order 
to get this done.
  We need more of that in the Senate, we need more of that in the U.S. 
Government, and I thank the Senators who have worked so hard to make 
this happen and my colleague in the House, Jeff Miller, for the work he 
has done in terms of bringing this forward as well. He has done a 
fantastic job.
  Compare that to the way this issue on student loans has been handled, 
however. This is a legitimate issue that needs to be addressed, but the 
bill that

[[Page 9851]]

was brought before the Senate included something the proponents knew 
was deeply political and controversial--the so-called Buffett rule. We 
have had debate on that issue before. We can have debate in the future.
  They knew the simple utilization of that rule as part of this 
measure--as admitted, by the way, by Members of the majority who have 
talked about this measure in the past--they knew that by putting that 
in there, it politicized it and, quite frankly, doomed it to failure.
  Let me lift the veil for those who are watching at home or in the 
gallery or anywhere, watching or listening now or in the future. They 
knew what the outcome would be when they included that, but it was put 
in there for the purposes of saying Republicans blocked this because 
they knew that issue in and of itself served as a sort of poison pill 
that held this up. It is unfortunate because the issue of student loans 
is a very valid issue in America.
  Look, there was a time not long ago when higher education was an 
important option for millions of Americans, but, for example, even if 
someone didn't have a college education, they could still find a 
middle-income job that allowed them to make it to the middle class.
  That is how my parents did it. Neither one of my parents had advanced 
formal education. Neither one finished the equivalent of high school. 
Yet we lived in the middle class. We achieved the American dream, 
because working as a bartender and as a maid, my parents were able to 
make enough money to achieve that.
  The world has changed. Today, if someone doesn't have some form of 
advanced education, they are going to struggle to find a job that pays 
enough to keep up with the cost of living, much less to get ahead. This 
has made higher education no longer an option. It is now a necessity. 
This is an issue that needs to be looked at in multiple ways, not 
simply the loan issue, by the way.
  Take, for example, the story of a 41-year-old head of household who 
has worked their entire life to provide for their family and now has 
lost their job or their business, the only way they are going to be 
able to get a job that makes it to the middle class in the 21st 
century--because the job they used to have has been automated or 
outsourced or the industry is no longer around. The only way they are 
going to be able to make it back into the middle class and stay there 
is to acquire skills and education necessary for 21st century middle-
class and above jobs.
  But if someone is 41 years old and they have to work full time to 
provide for their family, and they have to raise that family, they 
can't just drop everything and go back to college for 4 years, and they 
probably can't afford it either. So we need to revolutionize what 
higher education means in America so people living those circumstances 
can access it in a cost-effective way.
  When I worked in the State legislature, I had an employee who was the 
equivalent of my executive assistant. She made less than $30,000 a year 
because that is what the State pay grade called for. But she went to 
school at night and became a paralegal and doubled her pay on the day 
after her graduation because she was able to acquire advanced skills 
and a degree that allowed her to improve not just her lifestyle and her 
quality of life but that of her daughter's as well--a young, single 
mother struggling to provide and move ahead in life.
  The problem is that our existing higher education system is one we 
had in the 20th century. It is largely designed for a student who 
graduates from high school and goes to college for 4 years, but it is 
inaccessible and unaffordable for Americans who are later in their 
lives, who have to work full time and raise a family, for people who in 
the middle of a career have found their job outsourced or automated and 
need to be retrained. That in and of itself calls for higher education 
to be revolutionized. The second point I would make is there is some 
innovation in higher education. For example, there are degrees and 
degree-type programs you can now get online. But you will often find 
that the cost of those programs is as much and more than a brick and 
mortar institution would charge. It costs as much and in many instances 
more to get your degree on line than it would by sitting in a classroom 
and taking lectures every day. For many people that is not realistic.
  So we need to revolutionize what higher education means. The 
traditional 4-year college will always be an important part of it, but 
we also have to provide programs that allow people to graduate from 
high school with skills that allow them to immediately be employed such 
as more welders and more electricians. There is nothing wrong with 
that. These are important jobs that we have shortages in, by the way.
  We need to create more innovation so that people can acquire learning 
in the most effective way possible. For example, why can't we allow 
people to package learning in any way they acquire it, online, work 
experience, life experience, to be able to package all of your learning 
and acquire the equivalent of a degree that allows you to go to work?
  There are real answers to these problems. I am involved in at least 
three of them. One is a program called ``Right to Know Before You Go'' 
that I sponsored with Senator Wyden. It is a bipartisan proposal. It is 
very simple. It says that when you go to school before you take out a 
loan you have to be told: ``This is how much people that graduate from 
our school with a degree that you are seeking make.'' So you can decide 
whether it is worth taking out thousands of dollars in loans for a 
degree that doesn't lead to jobs.
  The other proposal is changing the way we accredit higher education 
in America. Accrediting basically means you have permission to get a 
college degree. But the institutions who control that process are the 
existing status quo schools. They will always have an important job in 
our educational portfolio but they cannot be the only ones anymore. We 
need to change that so there are alternative programs available that 
allow you to package learning no matter how you acquire it so that you 
can get credit for that as well. So the changing of accrediting is a 
big part of this.
  I believe that income-based repayments should be a part of this. 
There is a more responsible way to do it. Thankfully, Senator Warner 
and I are working on such a proposal. I wish issues such as that were 
debated as a part of this solution, as opposed to simply a political 
stunt brought to the floor designed to get enough ``no'' votes by 
Republicans so it can be used in November on the campaign trail.
  Student loans--a trillion dollars' worth--are owed by both 
Republicans and Democrats. We need to get this issue solved if we are 
going to move forward. On the Veterans' Administration issue--I see a 
number of Senators have arrived and potentially have an announcement 
for us--we have made great progress. The bill is important, but the one 
part I have been working on personally is accountability, giving the 
Secretary the power to hire and to fire those mid-level bureaucrats 
that are not doing their job. That is an important measure. I am glad 
that is included in this. I am glad the Senate will be moving forward 
on this in a few moments.
  It is the tale of two bills. One is an example of how we can get 
things done to address the real needs in our country, and the other is 
a missed opportunity to address one of the single greatest impediments 
to upward mobility and the American dream in the 21st Century--and that 
is the accessibility and affordability of higher education, because 
today higher education is no longer just an option. In some way, shape 
or form acquiring higher education has become a necessity for all 
Americans, and we need to make that more accessible and more 
affordable.
  It is my hope that in the weeks and months to come we will be able to 
put aside the desire to turn this issue into a political tool and come 
together to solve this problem because there is a trillion dollars of 
student loan debt sitting out there, and there are hundreds of 
thousands of Americans who desperately need to acquire some sort of

[[Page 9852]]

higher education and they cannot afford it or they cannot access it or 
both. They need us to address this issue because this cannot be an 
issue we do not resolve. The American dream will continue to slip out 
of reach for millions of people in this new century unless we make the 
acquisition of higher education more accessible and more affordable to 
people from all walks of life: the 18-year-old who graduates from high 
school, the 25-year-old single mother, the 41-year-old father who heads 
a household, and everyone in between.
  This is an enormous challenge for our country but one for which there 
are solutions. All we need now is a willingness to proceed to do it, 
and I hope that in the weeks to come, once we pass this moment, we can 
get back on this issue and solve it in a real and responsible way.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak on these issues. I look forward 
to working to pass the veterans bill hopefully today and to move 
forward and work together in a serious and meaningful way to make 
higher education more affordable for every American who needs it in 
order to achieve their American dream.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Madam President, before I say anything, I really and deeply 
appreciate the ability of the Democrats and Republicans to work 
together on an extremely important issue, and I need not editorialize 
more than that.

                          ____________________