Transparency in Cost of Veterans Care Act of 2014

Mr. President, during Memorial Day and last week, I spent much of the time traveling Ohio with Michael Fairman, a retired Navy corpsman and a Columbus resident, who served with the Marines in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2011. His son Zack is a third-generation Navy corpsman serving with the Marine Corps First Tank Battalion deployed in the Middle East.

Based on his own combat experiences and his concern for other veterans and the suicide of a friend, a fellow veteran, Mr. Fairman came to my office with an idea of how we can help both servicemembers and veterans--veterans like Alexander Powell, a student at the University of Toledo who joined us in Northwest Ohio. Mr. Powell was deployed in Iraq in 2006 when his gun truck was struck by an IED. He had no physical or visible injuries. He went back to duty the next day, but he began experiencing blackouts and dizzy spells. It wasn't until 2009 that he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and hospitalized to begin treatment.

Mr. Powell is not alone. The VA reports that some 300,000 veterans struggle with post-traumatic stress. The Defense Department reports that out of 300,000 TBI injuries, there are 25,000 cases of what they call mild traumatic brain injuries because mild TBI is an invisible injury. Think of an NFL player getting a concussion or a series of concussions over a period of a career. Think of a soldier getting what a number of soldiers said to me--marines and air men and women and soldiers and sailors talk about getting their ``bell rung'' when they get a head injury. It is an injury that is not serious enough for an NFL player to sit down, not serious enough for a soldier to be sent home, perhaps not serious enough for a soldier to get any medical treatment at all, but one of a series of concussive events of invisible or minor head injuries can lead to problems a number of years later.

So when veterans or servicemembers seek service-connected disabilities for related injuries, they often don't have the necessary documents needed to establish the connection between their military service and their claim with the VA. That was the case for Mr. Powell. He told me last week:

It was my job [after returning home] to gather up any proof

that I had to show that my truck was hit by an IED and gather

statements from people who were there to corroborate my

story. That is a task, if not done immediately after the

incident, that is almost impossible to accomplish.

So 5 years, 6 years, 7 years later, Mr. Powell is back in Ohio trying to piece together the series of head injuries he sustained, what exactly happened, finding witnesses, his unit commander, and comrades to be able to prove to the VA that his disability is earned and warranted and trying to explain to his doctor what his head injuries might have entailed. The burden is on the veteran to provide the VA with information establishing the connection between their claim and their service. This can lead to denied claims. It can lead to improper medical care. It increases the disability claims backlog.

We are all concerned--even though the VA has shrunk that backlog by 50 percent in the last year or so, we also know that one of the reasons for the backlog at the VA is it takes so much more time for the VA employee and the soldier to try to piece together the record of injuries that might have taken place 5 years ago, a decade ago, a decade and a half ago. That is why I introduced the Significant Event Tracker Act, which Mr. Fairman helped to create. This bill will improve the claims process for veterans and servicemembers. Mr. Fairman visited a number of House and Senate offices. The only one who responded was actually Senator Cornyn's office, from Texas. He and I have talked about this bill, and we both understand how important this can be to veterans. Let me explain the bill.

First, it would allow unit commanders to document events, such as a roadside bombing, that each servicemember in their command is exposed to and which might later be connected to these ``invisible injuries.''

Second, recording this information on an individual basis will help military medical officers better diagnose and treat military members who have mental health concerns.

Finally, for veterans and military retirees, this act will help them file better initial claims--claims with supporting documentation from DOD. In other words, veterans should be able to focus on their recovery, not on having to prove the cause of their injury.

Let me say that again. A soldier going to the VA in Dayton, OH, or Cincinnati or to a veterans clinic in Mansfield should be able to focus on her recovery and not having to prove the cause of her injury. This bill puts the responsibility on the Army, on the Marines, on the Defense Department, not on the veteran, to track and connect significant events to individual servicemembers that would later potentially lead to post-traumatic stress or to traumatic brain injury. Commanders already report major injuries. We want commanders to report about individual servicemembers who were involved in any kind of a minor or ``invisible'' head injury.

This was a big idea that came to me from Michael Fairman. He visited a number of Senate offices and House offices. Senator Cornyn showed interest in it. My office has written the legislation with Michael Fairman. This Nation is rightfully proud of our veterans. This idea came from a veteran. This idea deserves to be seriously entertained by this Senate and, frankly, by the Defense Department, if we can work with them, on finding ways to implement some of these ideas.

25th Anniversary of Tiananmen Square

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate an event that happened 25 years ago today not just in Beijing, China, but in other places in China when millions of people across that country, in Tiananmen Square and other places, rallied in support of democracy, human rights, and an end to official corruption.

Like many Americans, I was inspired. At the time, I wasn't a Member of Congress. Living in Ohio, I was inspired by the courage and pursuit of individual fundamental freedoms--freedoms that we hold dear in this country and sometimes take for granted, that are not always granted in other countries around the world. I recall the optimism of that moment and how it was crushed when the tanks rolled in.

Today we assess what the last 25 years meant to the Chinese but also, more importantly, to U.S.-China relations and what our policy should be. China has made tremendous leaps forward in the past 40 years since normalization, but following Tiananmen Square we have missed opportunity after opportunity to integrate China into the global rule- based community of nations to protect our economic interests and to move China in the right direction on political reform.

It is not an easy task, but 25 years later China is still fundamentally undemocratic. It too often refuses to play by the rules-- rules that would benefit China short term and long term. The question now is whether China will address the challenge facing it or will it continue to take a more doctrinaire and hardline stance, one that undermines the progress China has made and, because of China's influence, could undermine the global system and regional stability.

In many respects China has reaped the benefits of open trade with the rest of the world while avoiding many of its obligations. Our trade deficit with China at the time of Tiananmen Square 25 years ago stood at $6 billion; that is, we bought from China $6 billion in goods more than we sold to China. Last year it grew to 50 times that

amount--$318 billion--the highest ever. That means almost every single day of the year on the average, every single day of the year, we buy from China $900 million more in goods than we sell to China. That trade deficit and China's currency manipulation has cost Americans millions of jobs and significantly reduced our Federal budget.

I know what unbalanced, unfair, and not playing on a level playing field trade with China has done to places such as Springfield, OH, Marion, OH, and Chillicothe and Lima, and my hometown of Mansfield, and Ravenna, OH, all over my State, all over the Midwest, all over the country. In the end, we compromised as a nation too much. We bought into the myth that China's economic integration after Tiananmen Square would bring about human rights and respect for the United States and international rules. That is not what has happened.

Through the commission I chair, the Congressional Executive Commission on China, we have tried to honor the memory of Tiananmen Square by making sure that China's obligations toward human rights and the rule of law are not forgotten.

The commission highlighted many concerns: cyber theft threats to democracy in Hong Kong, illegal, unfair trade practices, denial of visas, or threats of denial of visas to foreign journalists, food safety, environmental, and public health concerns, a crackdown on human rights activists, including Ilham Tohti, a peaceful activist for the Uyghur minority group in Tibet.

It is my hope we have an open and transparent debate about our China policy. Whether it be on trade agreements, where we continue to be on the short end every single year, or whether it is about growing Chinese foreign investment in this country, this debate must be given proper weight rather than ignoring our concerns over human rights, the rule of law, labor, public health, and the environment.

Above all, the debate about U.S. policy toward China must include all segments of our society and not the way we typically do trade agreements in this country, supported by newspaper publishers, economists at Harvard, but not fundamentally supported by the American people and the public.

Our workers and small businesses need to be included, NGOs and human rights groups, instead of being led by powerful interest groups such as large corporations. Debate needs to be inclusive and it needs to draw on the interests and aspirations of all parts of American society.

More must be done as we honor 25 years in the memory of Tiananmen Square. The world must continue to seek improvements on China's record of human rights and the rule of law. More must be done. Only by recognizing the legitimate aspirations of its people and the obligations of the international system can China assume the role to fit its history and its size.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I first congratulate my colleague Senator Isakson for doing a good job of summarizing exactly where we are and the problems we are experiencing with the complexity of the Affordable Care Act and the hope that the new Secretary will be responsive, as the Senator so eloquently pointed out when he questioned her when she came before the committee. I thank the Senator for making an excellent speech and making excellent points, and I will endeavor to do the same, as we are talking about the same subject.

My remarks are once again on the Affordable Care Act. I know we have other issues, many important issues--the Veterans' Administration, the release of terrorists in an exchange--but it is equally important we continue to shed light on the many failings of this law.

During the very first debate on the Affordable Care Act, I distinctly remember comparing this rush to government health care as akin to riding hell-for-leather into a box canyon to find the only alternative would be to turn around, ride back out, and get on a more realistic, market-oriented health reform trail.

Then I put it another way. I said: There are a lot of cactuses out there. We didn't have to sit on every one of them.

We never even saw the bill before we voted on it. I think everybody understands that. I voted no and so did every Republican Senator and Member of Congress. This was not a bipartisan effort.

I regret to say to my colleagues that I told you so, and here we are in a box canyon. Until the administration provides us more details to the contrary, we have to assume that more Americans are losing the care they liked,

through cancellation notices, than they have enrolled in the exchanges. They are in a box canyon.

It is now estimated that ObamaCare will cost the Nation nearly $2 trillion and has created higher premiums, higher taxes, less choice, confusion, delays, and problem after problem. Unfortunately, the President and his allies in the Congress continue to protect this law, despite its toll on our economy, our patients, and our providers.

The President promised, as we all remember: We'll lower premiums for a typical family by $2,500 per year.

Valerie from Wichita, KS, wrote me a letter to share her story on this broken promise. She writes:

I wanted to let you know that I had to drop my company

health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act. My premium

before the Act was $250 a month and my employer paid $100 a

month toward the premium.

My insurance year expired April 1st and the new year is

under the ACA health insurance. The new plan is now much

higher at $565 a month and my employer can only afford to

pitch in $150 a month. I had to drop my plan due to

unaffordability. I could not pay the $415 a month.

The President also promised, highly publicized: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period,'' and, ``If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor.''

This law has significantly disrupted the individual health insurance market by imposing mandates and causing at least 5 million Americans to lose the insurance they had or have.

Doug, also from Wichita, wrote to share his personal story on this one. He said:

I am a small business owner who just got my family's health

insurance cancelled. I have talked it through with [the

insurance company] and at a minimum I will be paying 63% more

per month for coverage that has a deductible 3 times greater

than what I had and my doctor may or may not be in the

network.

Doug continues on to say:

The only topic that matters in Washington is stopping the

insanity of [ObamaCare].

Most important, the President promised, ``I will protect Medicare.'' This law cuts over $700 billion from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare. Part of those cuts come from the establishment, the establishment of an Independent Payment Advisory Board--what a wonderful acronym for this board--IPAB. This Board is supposed to be made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will decide which treatments in Medicare coverage should be taken away with regard to reimbursement. As I have stated on the Senate floor before, the IPAB has no accountability and their decisions are practically impossible to overturn.

The administration continues to give us piecemeal data on exchange enrollments, delays provisions of the law that they can't implement on time or simply wants to delay--a large serving of politics involved-- and is providing exclusive waivers and special deals to unions and others from the yoke of ObamaCare.

In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirmed that the administration has missed half of the mandated deadlines of this law. Most recently, press reports have indicated the government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans for their health care plans in the new Federal insurance exchanges, and they have so far been unable to fix the errors. Obviously, this poses a lot of problems for a lot of people.

Unfortunately, the President and his allies in Congress continue to protect this law despite its toll on our economy, patients, and providers.

A new Health and Human Services Secretary has been nominated, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, as Senator Isakson referred to, but with ObamaCare, nothing will alter. We are headed for socialized medicine. ObamaCare is the President's legacy. The President will unilaterally change what suits him best.

The hard-working taxpayers who are paying for this law, in large part from the 21 tax increases contained in it, have a right to some answers. That is right, I said 21 tax increases. Just some of these taxes include the following: the individual mandate tax, where people have to pay the government for not having insurance, even if they can't afford it; the employer mandate tax, where an employer pays a tax because they may have chosen to forgo providing insurance to their employees instead of having to lay off workers; the health insurance tax, which will be passed along to individuals in the form of higher premiums; the medical device tax.

I could go on and on. Many of these taxes have bipartisan support to be repealed, but we can't even get a vote on those.

With a $1.8 trillion pricetag, this bill is so far-reaching it is difficult to find a Federal agency that doesn't have a hand in this pot; from your doctor's office to your wallet, to your privacy. That is why I am introducing today a bill to require a special inspector general for monitoring the Affordable Care Act. We call it the SIGMA Act. It is the Special Inspector General for Monitoring the Affordable Health Care Act.

While all of the Federal agencies charged with implementing the Affordable Care Act have Offices of the Inspector General--and they do, they are all investigating this law in their own silo--where have we heard that before with a lot of problems within the Federal Government--the Health and Human Services inspector general isn't talking to the Treasury IG or the Department of Labor IG or the Homeland Security IG or any one of those with each other.

This bill would give appropriate authority to investigate and to audit any programs or activities related to this law across the many Federal departments, State exchanges, and private contractors.

The legislation will require a report to be submitted to Congress and the American people 6 months after enactment and quarterly reports for the duration of time the Affordable Care Act is on the books. They have broad authority to review all aspects of the law. Things such as the following:

Changes in the health insurance marketplace, the amount of folks who have seen their premiums and out-of-pocket costs increased, shrinking physician and other provider networks. We have a right to know that.

The employer mandate, its effect on worker hours, employers' hiring, and the number of businesses subjected to the penalty. We have a right to know that.

The healthcare.gov Web site, its security, functionality, and verification systems. We have read a lot about that, but we have a right to know.

Duties of the Internal Revenue Service, plans for calculating subsidy overpayments and underpayments, how they will notify these individuals and what their plans are for recapturing these overpayments.

Medicare cuts via the IPAB, they will provide an analysis of the impact on medical outcomes for our seniors as a result of these cuts. We should know that.

All of these questions could and should be answered by a special inspector general. The bill would equip the special IG with the same investigative and law enforcement authority as standing inspectors general, including subpoena and audit powers to compel responses from the administration.

President Obama has claimed that his--his--is ``the most transparent administration in history'' and that his administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. Given these statements, I think the President should embrace the idea of a special inspector general for his health care law. After all, we need to know the outcomes of the 41 changes he has already made to the law.

It would provide increased transparency so the general public has a better understanding about this law. It would protect taxpayer dollars, and by providing an independent analysis of this law, it will allow the administration and Congress to make more informed decisions and work together on how we move forward with reforms to our health care system. I believe we need to do everything possible to repeal and replace this law with real health care reform--reforms that lower costs and restore the all-important relationship between a patient and a doctor.

However, as long as this law is on the books, we need a watchdog or a special inspector general to investigate the implementation of this law and ensure that our scarce taxpayer dollars are being spent in an appropriate manner. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill in calling for

increased oversight of the affordable--or unaffordable--health care law.

Let's ride out of the box canyon. Let's get on a better health care reform trail, and on the way we certainly don't have to sit on every cactus that comes along.

Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services because as a physician I am very concerned and want to make sure Americans can get health care. I think getting care is actually much more important than getting the insurance component of that, but that is nothing new, and I said that to the President. In so many ways, the President has actually offered empty coverage but is not actually providing an opportunity for care for people. We have seen situations where people are paying higher premiums, higher copays, and higher deductibles, all of which are the many side effects of the President's health care law.

When I hear my colleague from Connecticut make reference to rates going up, let's face it. What the President of the United States said is that premiums would drop $2,500 per family by the end of his first term. The President didn't say, well, it will not go up as fast or that it will go up some, but don't worry about it. The facts are that people are continuing to be hurt by the health care law, and much of it is as a result of the expense of the law.

Last week USA Today had a report that said: ``Many employees hit with higher health care premiums.'' They go on to say:

More than half of companies increased employees' share of

health care premiums or co-payments for doctors' visits in

2013. . . .

Why? Because of the health care law. What other things have businesses that are trying to provide health insurance for their employees had to do? Thirty-two percent of the time the businesses delayed raises for the individuals because the cost of insurance under the President's health care law has gone up so much. People who are concerned about take-home pay are getting hurt by the health care law.

According to this USA Today report, 22 percent eliminated or cut back on benefits, and 21 percent of these folks were cut back from full-time work to part-time work. That is obviously a hit to somebody's take-home pay.

The report says health care premiums have increased 80 percent since 2003, nearly three times faster than wages and nearly three times faster than inflation. The health care law has actually failed to do what the President promised when it comes to actually providing care and affordable care.

As I look around the country, it is interesting to see what is happening. There was a report out very recently about hundreds of thousands of Iowans who don't have coverage. The report goes on to talk about a woman who said she drove a half hour from

Mitchellville recently to seek care for flu-like symptoms at a free clinic in Des Moines. She is an assistant manager of a convenience store. She has been offered insurance by her employer but would have to pay $111 every 2 weeks for her part of the premium, and she said: ``I can't afford that. . . . There's no way on Earth.''

Our colleague from Connecticut said it is working. It is not working, and it is because of the mandates of the law, such as the mandate that people have to get insurance that the government says they need as opposed to what may be good for them or their family.

The woman, Reinna, said she heard most Americans are required to have health insurance this year or pay a penalty. Democrats who voted for this said if someone doesn't buy the insurance, they have to pay a penalty. She heard that and learned it was equal to 1 percent of her income.

According to this article from the Des Moines Register where they had their primary elections yesterday, in Iowa, the Des Moines Register: The lady laughed ruefully at the prospect. ``I don't care. They can fight me for it.''

So this is a woman in Iowa, knows about the penalty, knows about the mandates, and she would say to my colleague from Connecticut who was just on the floor that it is not working for her.

She bristled at the new requirement to obtain insurance. She said, if we could afford it, do you think we would be standing out here? Of course, where she was standing was in a line for a free clinic, nodding at a half dozen others in line on the sidewalk waiting for the free clinic to hold one of its twice-a-week sessions.

I come to the floor today, as I have repeatedly, to talk about the issues of the health care law as a doctor trying to make sure patients get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, and seeing that the President's health care law has failed miserably because so many people have been hurt by this health care law. They have had their insurance canceled, even though the President said, Oh, no, it won't happen. He said, If you like what you have, you can keep it. National folks who assessed this called that the lie of the year.

We also see that many people cannot keep their doctors, and they are finding out that their copays are higher, their premiums are higher.

It is interesting, because it is affecting people in so many different ways. Minnesota is another State where there has been a lot of debate and discussion about the health care law. The headline in the Mankato Times: ``Minnesota Schools to lose more than $200 Million because of ObamaCare.'' My colleague from Connecticut just said it is working. Well, if it is working, why are the Minnesota schools losing $200 million because of the health care law? The article says: State Representative Paul Torkelson said the wasteful spending on ObamaCare that has left many taxpayers outraged will soon be making a significant impact on Minnesota's schools--a significant impact on Minnesota schools. According to documents released by Minnesota's management and budget office, over the next 3 years, the total unfunded costs associated with Affordable Care Act compliance will cost school districts statewide at least $207 million.

It is troubling news for our schools, the State representative said. This is $200 million that school districts won't be able to use to hire more teachers or improve their educational programs. This is an unneeded expense that does absolutely nothing for our students.

The senator concludes by saying: It is pretty sad when schools are forced to prioritize ObamaCare compliance over the education of our children.

So I come to the floor when I hear my colleague from Connecticut saying it is working to say it is not working all across the country. It is not working in so many ways that the President said it is. The President said Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. I don't know how a Senator can stand up who voted for this and be proud of what we are seeing happening to school districts all across the State of Minnesota.

The President continues to tout some number of people who signed up across the country, and I always ask, How many of them actually have insurance?

In Oregon, a story just out in the last week or two, in The Oregonian: Thousands have not paid premiums for Cover Oregonian health policies, placing coverage at risk. So in spite of what my colleague from Connecticut may have said, this article says a large number of people who have signed up for private health insurers through the Cover Oregon health insurance exchange have not paid their first month's premiums, meaning they are at risk of going without coverage through November.

More than 81,000 people went through Cover Oregon--either through paper or electronic applications--to select a private plan. We know about the failures of that exchange. We know that the FBI, I believe, is investigating it. Of those, 5,000 have already canceled policies or been terminated for lack of payment. Thousands more have not yet paid their first month's premiums, meaning they have not completed their enrollment, according to the carriers.

The President talks about the numbers of enrollees. I don't know how many people actually paid to continue--to consistently say they have insurance, and consistent insurance, all the way through. Insurers say anywhere between 66 to 80 percent of consumers have paid, meaning anywhere from 20 to 34 percent have not. So it is hard for me to say that things are working.

It is interesting. Unions, which have supported the law, have come out with concerns. UNITE HERE, a union in Las Vegas, representing many of the casino workers, 2,000 housekeepers, waiters, others at 9 of 10 downtown Las Vegas casinos, are concerned about the cost. One of the union leaders has said, when we first supported the calls for health care reform, we thought it was going to bring costs down.

That did not happen, and that is why I am here on the floor.

Certainly. Absolutely. Yes, Mr. President.

I would say that many people in Oregon have been helped and many have been hurt. That is the problem with this health care law. There are people who have been helped, absolutely. I just believe that the costly side effects, the harmful side effects, the dangerous side effects of this health care law have actually hurt people. So for people who may have been helped, there are as many, if not more, who have been hurt through higher premiums, higher copays, loss of their doctor, can't go to their hospital--all of those things--plus, at the expense of significant amounts of taxpayer money wasted. I think we are seeing that situation in Oregon right now with potential lawsuits being filed, FBI investigating, whether there was oversight, and hundreds of millions of dollars, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal, of wasted taxpayer dollars. Oregon, I believe Massachusetts as well; Maryland, Minnesota, States that I have been talking about here.

I am referring to people who have been hurt by the health care law all across the country. I worry about the more than 5 million people who have lost their coverage as a result of the health care law.

Thank you. I am merely trying to respond to my colleague.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I will be less than 2 minutes.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, I am very proud to begin a conversation on the floor with a number of my colleagues about one of the most urgent and pressing challenges that face us as a body here in Washington, making laws, but even more preeminently to families and students around the country who literally, right now, are sitting at their kitchen tables, in their living rooms, in family gatherings, trying to find a path forward in financing their education, their children's education, their grandchildren's education.

We must do better as a nation. We have to do better in giving a fair shot to them--to the innovators and entrepreneurs and investors of the future--the people who will power our economy with ideas and energy as a result of college education, which is part of the American dream-- part of giving everybody in America a fair shot at that dream.

I have been doing a lot of listening over these past weeks, over these past 3\1/2\ years, and over three decades in public service. I think listening is one of the most important things we do as public officials. There is an old saying that God gave us two ears and one mouth so that maybe we do a little more listening than talking. When I talk to students--and I have been doing a lot of that at commencement addresses and classrooms and roundtables around the State of Connecticut--I tell them I want to listen. What I have been hearing at Ansonia High School and Windham High School and The Stanwich School-- high schools around the State of Connecticut--is they are seeing dreams crushed by the cost of college education. The pages who are here today, our children, when we go home at night can tell us about how devastating these costs are, how their hopes and aspirations for the future are constrained and sometimes crippled financially by the cost of college education. We must bring it down. The costs of tuition and expenses must be reduced.

At the same time, we need to find better financing options for our students. That is the reason we are reintroducing today the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, with some minor changes, because we have listened to people who have told us improvements that could be made in that measure. But, most importantly, we have listened to students, both the high school students and college students, who are telling us about dreams deferred and dreams devastated by the costs of college education. So we must make sure that the $1.2 trillion that overhangs them and our economy is addressed.

This measure would help the students of today and tomorrow. It would help the students of today because it offers promise for the future, and the students who already have debt would be able to reduce that debt. Those students who are paying 7 or 8 or 10 or 11 percent would be able to reduce it, refinance, not just--we all do refinancing of our home loans and our car loans right now. There is no possibility of doing it with student debt loan, and that is what this measure would enable them to do. For folks who have graduated and who cannot start families, begin businesses, buy homes, contribute to our economy, it would enable them to accomplish those dreams rather than deferring or abandoning them.

I am often heartbroken, as I talk to people who have these debts. They did the right thing; they played by the rules, went to college, and now find themselves crushed by that debt. Those who are laboring under these crushing debt loans often have pursued careers in medicine and other professions such as nursing that would enable them to do an enormous good for this country if they were helped, if that crushing burden were somehow reduced. Giving them a fair shot is good for our economy because it will increase consumer demand. It is also good for our social fabric--literally economically, socially, and physically good for our health by enabling some of those doctors and nurses to work in communities that are underserved right now. We ought to give them public service options, enable some of that debt to be paid down or paid off through community and public service. But the measure I think we can agree is urgent and pressing, where there ought to be consensus, is enabling the commonsense refinancing of current debt.

There are other measures that are vitally important, such as clarifying and requiring more accuracy and truth in the forms that are given to students at the time they take these loans so they know what their debt will be; enabling more of them to have grants rather than loans, bringing down the cost of tuition; enabling more public service options as a means to pay down or pay off debt. But let's focus right now on what is clearly an imperative--a moral imperative and a social imperative for our Nation--to enable more refinancing right now. For federal student loans that were originated in the years between 2007 and 2012, the government will make $66 billion. Mr. President, $66 billion. That money goes into the U.S. Treasury fund when, in fact, instead it should be invested in our students and our communities.

I urge my colleagues to join in this effort and to focus on those additional measures we can achieve.

I see my colleague from Illinois is here. He has championed and I have been pleased to join him in efforts to enable student debt to be discharged in bankruptcy. One of the great, gaping gaps in our present bankruptcy system is that students cannot find any relief from this student debt. Almost every other form of debt can be discharged from bankruptcy but not student debt.

So there are other measures we can and should achieve, but a fair shot for everyone ought to begin right now with this measure on the floor, enabling students and former students to refinance so they have the best shot at paying off those loans and a fair shot at the American dream.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois.

Order of Procedure

I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each during the majority's controlled time.

Mr. President, I would like to yield now to Senator Merkley and then to Senator Schumer.

I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, who has been such a champion and a leader in these efforts over so many years. Well before I came to the Senate, he was there working and fighting for more affordable loans for our students.

The comments that have been heard on the Senate floor over the past hour reflect a growing awareness and worry in the country, a worry about what happens to America in the future, whether we will leave a lesser America, and whether the American dream will be not only deferred but denied to so many students who are wondering and worrying right now about their personal futures as well as the future of the country.

These comments and this conversation will be extended over this day and the days to come as we prepare for a crucial vote next week on this bill. One of the chief authors of this bill, Senator Warren, is to be thanked and commended. She will be on floor later today or tomorrow to speak for herself, but she has shown, through her career, how often people who most need this kind of help, whose finances most cry out for this assistance, are impacted, and in fact constrained in their futures by the big banks and lending institutions that take advantage of them-- and, in this case, even the U.S. Government itself that is profiting off their backs--billions of dollars in profit at the expense of our students when we should be investing in them.

We have an obligation and a historic opportunity to make things right for young people and older people, whose present lives are impacted and whose futures are constrained by the daunting and financially crippling overhanging debt. It is an overhanging debt that impacts our economy because it prevents the entrepreneurs from taking risks. It prevents young people from buying homes and starting families. It financially cripples our economy as well as those individual lives.

So in the light of self-interest, we ought to argue for all of us to support this legislation. For myself, I am going to be listening to those students who discussed their futures with me at Ansonia High School, Stanwich, at roundtables across Connecticut, at the commencements where I spoke, and the college students who spoke to me at Quinnipiac, or the law school students there who talked to me about how their present lives and their spirit, their hope for public service, as well as for gaining for themselves the promise of their futures, will be impacted and maybe put out of reach by the debt they have, not just hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars, but tens of thousands of dollars and, for some, hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We can do better for them and for ourselves if we enable them to refinance. Right now, student debt is not only one of the few debts that is nondischargeable in bankruptcy, but it is one of the few debts that is nonrefinanceable.

Let's treat these students as we would other debtors. In fact, let's give them a fair shot. Let's give our country a fair shot.

I am proud to support this legislation. I thank all of my colleagues who are here today, and all who will support--I hope on both sides of the aisle--this vote we will have next week.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in support of Sylvia Burwell's nomination to lead our efforts at HHS and to follow up on the comments of her great friend Senator Manchin.

I would like to add two points to what I think was a great presentation by the Senator from West Virginia. We rarely get someone who has this kind of background in both the public and private sector and of course who is perfectly suited for a tour of duty at the helm of the Nation's largest public-private partnership.

HHS is obviously the payer for our Medicare Program and for much of our Medicaid Program, but they are doing business with literally hundreds of thousands of private entities and private companies all throughout the country--primarily health care practitioners from the east coast to the west coast--and the Affordable Care Act is an enormous private-public partnership. We expanded coverage through both the traditional Medicaid Program and also through millions of people--8 million and counting--who have signed up for private insurance with a little bit of help from their government through tax credits. It is this background that she has on both sides of the public-private divide that I think will put her in a perfect position to lead this agency.

When she came before the HELP Committee, I was particularly pleased that she was very willing to be flexible and aggressive in her work with Governors throughout the country who have not yet expanded Medicaid. I think there is growing willingness on behalf of many Republican Governors to look at some innovative ways to expand Medicaid, and Sylvia Burwell is the perfect Secretary to work with Governors to find a way--perhaps with subsidies--that will help people in the lower income brackets afford private insurance that could capture those 5 million individuals across the country who do not have access to Medicaid because their States have not expanded it.

I wish to spend a few minutes in the context of this debate answering what I imagine will be a growing chorus of concerns and criticism from our Republican friends regarding some of the new rate announcements from exchanges all across the country. It has been hard to follow a lot of the criticism of the Affordable Care Act because it seems as though it mutates on a pretty regular basis. It started out with claims that the Web site could never work given its initial rollout problems. Of course it is working very well today.

Another criticism was that nobody would sign up for this new benefit because it was not affordable. We hit 8 million in terms of those who signed up for private insurance.

They said young people would not sign up. Private insurers are telling us their mixes of enrollees are exactly as they hoped, especially with respect to the young people signing up.

Then they said people would not pay their premiums. In a House hearing about 1 month ago, the private insurers said that in fact 80 to 90 percent of people were paying their premiums, which is comparable with the non-ACA plans.

Of course, there was the general claim that it will bankrupt the Treasury, even though it is saving us trillions in terms of deficit savings as well as savings to the overall health care spending line items of the Federal Government.

Now the critique is that these rate increases are unjustifiable as insurers are getting ready to offer rates on the new exchanges coming out for open enrollment at the end of this year.

First of all, it is important to note that there are a lot more insurance companies offering health care on these new exchanges. Connecticut will get at least one new entrant. New Hampshire, for instance, went from one insurer to five insurers. There is very good news coming with the new exchanges. There will be a lot more options because the insurers have figured out it is a pretty good deal for them as well as their consumers.

It is important to have a little bit of context. I have a couple of examples of the kind of premium increases that have been asked for by private insurers all across the country in the last several years. In 2010, Anthem in California proposed a 25- to 39-percent increase in premiums. Again in 2010, Anthem asked for a 23-percent increase in Maine. The year before in Michigan, Blue Cross Blue Shield asked for increases up to 56 percent for some populations.

The reality is that on average we have seen a premium increase for the individual market of 15 percent or above over the last 10 years. That is not good news, but it does provide some context for the requests for premium increases we are going to see in the exchanges this year. Actually, the reality is that since the law passed, there has been a fairly precipitous decline in the number of premium increases above 10 percent that have been requested by private insurers. There are less requests for premium increases above 10 percent today than there were in the corresponding period before the Affordable Care Act was passed.

Just because the rate increases that are being requested--or may be requested--as we roll out the next year of open enrollment for the State-based exchanges may be below the historical averages of the last few years, that certainly is not any reason for people to jump for joy. Fifteen percent is unaffordable, fifty-six percent is unaffordable, and 10 percent is still unaffordable.

It is also important to note some of the protections that are in the bill. For instance, one of the most important provisions of the Affordable Care Act that very few people have noticed is the provision that says that an insurer has to spend 80 percent of all the money it takes in on care. If at the end of the year they have not spent 80 percent of the money they have taken in from ratepayers and premium payers on direct care, then they have to rebate money to consumers.

Thus, if these premium increases are above what is justified based on the actual experience, there is going to be a rebate paid to ratepayers. Those rebates thus far have saved patients and consumers all across the country $5 billion, and it is a significant, historic protection against unjustifiable premium increases that are not backed by actual experience in terms of claims paid.

The protections are even broader. While rate increases are not new, what is new is that consumers are back in charge of their health care again. Ten years ago insurers were charging 15 percent, 20 percent increases and they were also denying health care to millions of Americans who were sick. In some parts of the country they were charging women 50 percent more than what they were charging men. They were putting annual limits on health care coverage that ended medical insurance for many of the sickest individuals and families all across the country. All of those abuses, under the Affordable Care Act, are history.

While I will admit we still have work to do to bring down the cost of health insurance in this country, at the very least today consumers are back in charge of their health care, the worst excesses and abuses of the insurance industry are no longer permitted.

While I want to see a day when health insurance premium increases are 2, 3, and 4 percent, what we are seeing thus far in the wake of the passage of the Affordable Care Act is premium increases that are less than the historical average before the law was passed.

Those are the facts. I know that is not solace for individuals who are receiving these premium increases, but what we have seen are premium increases coming down and not going up since the Affordable Care Act was passed.

There is still an enormous amount of work to do. The news is generally very good. More people are being enrolled in the Affordable Care Act than what was expected. Over the last 6 months alone, the rate of uninsured individuals in this country has come down by 20 percent. Medical inflation is at a near-term historic low. Whether it be infection or readmission rates, outcomes are getting better.

Our next Secretary of Health and Human Services will have a lot of work to do to continue to perfect this law, but she is going to have a lot of good work and a lot of good outcomes upon which to build, based on her experience in both managing private sector entities and large public sector entities. Even with these challenges, Sylvia Burwell is the right choice for HHS, and I hope we will confirm her in a big vote tomorrow.

I yield back.

Mr. President, in the wake of some recent Supreme Court decisions touching on our system of campaign finance, there has arisen in the Senate, frankly, this bizarre notion that we are going to amend the Constitution to undo the Bill of Rights, and particularly the First Amendment and its protection of the freedom of speech.

Of course, the proponents don't describe it that way. To hear the majority leader, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, he said: They are merely trying to keep what he called dark money out of American politics.

By giving Congress the ability to regulate political speech and the means by which that is paid for and disseminated, this amendment would invite all manner of partisan mischief and abuses and effectively dismantle one of the most fundamental liberties secured by our Constitution which makes America the envy of the world, and in many ways unique in that we protect freedom of speech without regard to the content of the speech and without regard to the identity of the speaker, whether they be rich, poor, or a member of the middle class. Whether that opinion is informed or not necessarily well-informed, we believe in the marketplace of ideas where the American people are the only judge as to what they believe the truth is. We don't try to stifle or squelch speakers, particularly in the political process.

As our good friend the Republican leader said yesterday:

If incumbent politicians were in charge of political

speech, a majority could design the rules to benefit itself

and diminish its opponents. And when roles reversed, you

could expect a new majority to try to disadvantage the other

half of the country. And on it would go.

So this power the majority leader has proposed in amending the Constitution so Congress could regulate political speech could be an instrument of incumbent protection where the party in power could use that as a weapon against the minority trying to persuade the country that they should be restored to the majority rather than linger as a minority.

Is this really the kind of system our colleagues who are proposing this constitutional amendment want? Well, you have to ask whether they have any realistic belief that this will actually become law. And of course it would have to pass both Houses of the Congress by a two- thirds vote, and it would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the States. I don't think it is an overstatement to say they have no chance of this becoming law.

Why in the world is such an outlandish proposal being made by somebody such as the distinguished majority leader of the Senate and other folks in his party? Well, it is no exaggeration to say this proposed amendment would undermine American democracy as we know it, so there has to be some other reason other than the substance of the amendment they are trying to get at.

Lest we forget the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure that all political speech--as a matter of fact all speech, period--is protected from government interference, and that is why it is in the Bill of Rights, at the time our country was founded there was a serious debate about whether we needed an explicit Bill of Rights or whether the very structure of our government with its checks and balances and our shared power between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches would itself provide that protection. But the Federalists said, no, we are not going to settle for that. We want an explicit protection of those rights that are not derived from government but which precede government--which don't come from government but come from our Creator.

Under the logic used by the proponents, the government should change this provision in the Bill of Rights that has been the law of the land for more than 200 years and now start regulating how much money newspapers, magazines, and Web sites are allowed to spend on articles concerning politics and public policy. After all, when media outlets publish this information, they are using their financial advantage over ordinary citizens to be able to get their views out to the public. And, of course, they are trying to persuade citizens and voters and trying to affect political outcomes, both in terms of public policy choices and elections.

The majority leader, if he were on the floor, might say: Well, we have a provision in here that we will not grant Congress the power to abridge freedom of the press. If you could turn off and on the money by which the press disseminates its point of view, if you can regulate perhaps even to the point of zero on the part of political actors and their ability to disseminate their views in the public or influence voters before the election, this carveout is effectively meaningless.

It would most certainly grant Congress the power to abridge the free speech of individuals and groups as disparate as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and the Sierra Club, which obviously have different views but enjoy and are entitled to the same freedom to speak their views and persuade people to their point of view as much as anybody else. It would also grant Congress the power to abridge other freedoms in the First Amendment, such as freedom of assembly and freedom to petition government for the redress of grievances, and it would allow State governments to ride roughshod even over freedom of the press.

You have to wonder why in the world would intelligent, highly educated, experienced Senators--people who are

knowledgeable about all of the matters I have talked about--propose such a wrongheaded idea and one they know will never become the law of the land?

Well, unfortunately, this is part of an effort to intimidate and stigmatize people from participating in the political process. We know the majority leader comes out to the floor and talks daily about the Koch brothers, whom he happens to disagree with, and he disagrees with their right and ability to participate in the political process and to affect elections. He doesn't talk about other political actors, such as organized labor, which has essentially been carved out of the limitations on political contributions and political spending. He doesn't talk about people such as Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager who says he will spend $100 million against anyone who supports the Keystone Pipeline or anyone who opposes his views on climate change.

This cherry-picking in terms of trying to intimidate people and to squelch political speech is pretty apparent. It becomes apparent because obviously the majority leader is very worried about the upcoming midterm election and what might happen when we see the pushback from voters in the Senate races all across the country over the last 5 years, and this great, huge growth in government and its intrusiveness in their lives.

Here is the bottom line: Free speech is free speech, period. To quote a recent Supreme Court decision:

There is no right more basic in our democracy than the

right to participate in electing our political leaders.

As they said, there is nothing more basic.

As I mentioned a moment ago, thankfully the Founders were wise enough not only to give us the Bill of Rights and our Constitution but to make it very difficult to amend it in the first place, so we know the majority leader's amendment has no chance of actually passing. Yet its mere introduction, the fact that a major political party and a majority in the Senate apparently believes in shrinking the First Amendment in order to weaken their political opponents, should be a cause of broadspread concern in the country. People ought to ask the question: Why in the world would you propose to do something as draconian and as damaging as that?

Well, it is the kind of amendment we would expect to see not in the greatest deliberative body in the world, and certainly not in the Senate, but maybe some banana republic or some country that does not have our experience or our foundation in constitutional self- government. Therefore, it is not merely enough to reject this amendment and then quickly move on to something else. We need to send a clear, unambiguous message that the Bill of Rights is not up for debate. We need to send a clear, unambiguous message that our First Amendment freedoms represent the bedrock of American democracy, and we will not agree to undermine that, damage it, or otherwise impair it on our watch.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise for a moment to talk about the Sylvia Burwell nomination, pending confirmation to be Secretary of Labor at HHS, and also to talk about the Affordable Care Act, because you can't separate the two.

I have the good fortune of being on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee. The good fortune of that is it allowed me to twice be able to interrogate--and I use the word interrogate understanding its many definitions--Ms. Burwell over issues that were important to me both in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, as well as in the Finance Committee.

I found her to be articulate, forthright, straightforward, and candid--something we haven't had in the Secretary of Labor-HHS for the last year or so. I am looking forward to having somebody in there who will be able to answer the hard questions. I might not like the answer, I might not agree with the solutions, but I like having somebody who has the intellect, the capability, and the willingness to communicate with Members of Congress, regardless of their party. So I will vote for Sylvia Burwell to be confirmed as Secretary of Labor and HHS, and I wish her the best.

No one should confuse that vote, however, for being a vote in support of the Affordable Care Act and what it is doing to health care in the United States today. I want to talk about that for a second. Some of these things I want to talk about are questions I asked Ms. Burwell in the confirmation hearing.

When I was on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and we did the markup in terms of the health care bill, we met for 69\1/2\ hours. I heard every debate on every amendment; I heard every debate on every philosophy; I heard every proposal that was made, and it became quite clear to me that the premise of that legislation, based on the President's recommendation, was diametrically opposed to my personal philosophy in terms of where government's role should be.

I think the President--and it has been said by the leader Harry Reid recently--thought a single-payer health care system was the right way to go. I think the Affordable Care Act is designed to drive America toward a single-payer health care system.

I would rather have a competitive private sector system that is on a playing field that the government makes sure is fair and level but that the winners and losers in health care become those who compete the best in terms of quality and service.

In fact, the intent of the ObamaCare act and Affordable Care Act has directed a lot of things to happen. Three of them were not good.

Premiums have gone up. The costs to the consumer have gone up, principally because taxes have been levied on the insurance industry. That is No. 1.

Access has been more limited and more restricted based on the Bronze Plan, the Silver Plan, the Gold Plan, and differences between the exchanges.

Third and foremost, there is a great uncertainty in America about what happens next and where health care is going, because the President has selectively given waivers and put off the impact of certain provisions of the law, while lifting up and actually repealing with his own signature and his own pen provisions that were in the law. So there is a lot of uncertainty.

Two things I want to focus on from the cost standpoint. One of them is what is called the HIT, the health insurance tax, which went into effect this year. This year $8 billion in taxes were levied against small- and medium-size group insurance providers in the exchanges for health care. It is an arbitrary number that was used to help determine and pay for the Affordable Care Act, and it is assessed based on the market share of the companies.

Think about this for a second. The U.S. Government is taxing health insurance providers based on their market share of health insurance, and adding that cost to where? To the premium that is paid by the consumer.

It has been estimated that the premium cost is going to go up about $512 a year for the average consumer, just in order for the moderately small- and medium-sized group provider to pay the fine or pay their share of the tax of $8 billion. That $8 billion in 2014, in 2019 goes to $14.3 billion and will go up ad infinitum as it will continue to climb--which means costs will continue to climb.

Access has been restricted because a lot of people aren't playing in the system. A lot of specialty hospitals have chosen not to join the plans. That has meant that specialty care to a lot of children and adults is not available.

Another problem we have had is with navigators, and I want to focus on the navigator point for a second, because it fundamentally underscores my belief in the private sector.

For years I ran a business. It was a business where we had some employees but mostly had independent contractors. We provided group medical benefits for our employees, but only access to salesmen who would sell group plan health plans for independent contractors.

They got a commission when they sold a plan, when they provided the services, and the employee or the independent contractor in my company decided to buy. What we did in the Affordable Care Act--or what the Affordable Care Act and those who voted for it did--it basically did away with all the salesmen in the country who were selling group medical plans to individuals and small businesses. Why? Because it had a medical-loss ratio maximum of 80 percent or 85 percent, meaning your medical costs had to be 80 percent to 85 percent of the premiums. Administrative costs could only be 15 to 20, and it counted the commission for selling the product as an administrative cost, which meant commissions weren't available to be paid.

So what happened? All the people in sales in terms of group medical insurance got out of the business and went to selling something else. What happened because of that? Navigators came about.

So we ended up hiring a bunch of unqualified, unknowledgeable, limited-talent people as navigators to offer to try and sell insurance under the new exchanges created by the ObamaCare act. What happened is sales of those policies were not very robust. In fact, it was very difficult for the President to get his minimum goal of 7 million people being covered. Why? Because the navigators weren't salesmen, No. 1; No. 2, they weren't as well educated as they should have been; and, No. 3, the States did not embrace it.

So that is the private sector solution that had been used for years and years in our country; that is, independent agents making sales of independent insurance products through independent contractors. That has now gone away. They have to now go find an employee who is a navigator, who has no incentive, because they are on a salary and not a commission, to provide a plan or to sell a plan. They merely are there to collect their paycheck and offer information, if in fact somebody can find them.

My point is this: Ms. Burwell is taking on a serious challenge in terms of Labor HHS. The Affordable Care Act presents a lot of problems in terms of access, cost, and quality of health care for the American people that will only get greater as the years go by. We are going to take somebody of her competence and her candid nature to help us join together to see to it that what has become a major problem that looms for our country, the Affordable Care Act, is revisited to look at a new way to go back to the private sector, go back to competition, go back to a level playing field and out of the business of selective taxation, less access, more cost, and more bureaucracy. That is what we have with the Affordable Care Act right now. That is what is untenable.

I wish Ms. Burwell the best. I intend to be very aggressive and active in my work on the Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee in trying to get to the bottom of some of the questions that have gone unanswered from the Department. I wish her the best, and I hope I get the answers to those questions when she is confirmed as the new Secretary of HHS.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we need to rethink financial aid in this country. We need urgent action if we are to reform our system, to return to the roots, the ideals that made college affordable for generations past, and hopefully for this generation and generations to come. Back in the 1970s and 1980s when several Members of today's Senate were college students, the Pell grant, which is the cornerstone of our Federal student aid programs, covered as much as 72 percent of the cost of attendance at a 4-year public college.

For the 2014-2015 academic year, the maximum grant is expected to cover less than one-third of the cost. Investing in things like Pell grants is critical to ensuring the doors to higher education remain open to all students with the talent and desire to pursue a college degree.

Young people today deserve the same fair shake that Members of this body got when we were undergraduate students, when grants and not loans covered most of the cost of college.

Now, I was fortunate enough at 17 to join the Army and attend West Point. So I did not have to face the rigors of financing college education. But everyone I know in my generation will tell you it was easier then because there was a strong Federal commitment to supporting men and women of talent and desire to go on to college. Ever-rising costs today are just pricing out a whole generation from college education.

We see more and more hard-working young people and their families falling behind as they try to pay for their degrees that were supposed to help them get ahead. In fact, an analysis of student loan debt by Demos predicts that today over $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt will lead to a total lifetime wealth loss of $4 trillion for indebted households. Not only do people start off after college with great debt, but their ability to build assets in the future is also reduced. So it is a much deeper hole than even the initial debt.

Student loan debt is jeopardizing this generation's ability to buy a home, to start a business, to start a family, to do things that my generation took for granted after getting out of college. For the last 30 years, tuition increases have outpaced inflation. Outstanding student loan debt has quadrupled since 2003. It is time for action.

First, we must provide relief for borrowers who are currently repaying their loans. We must ensure that student loan servicers are held accountable for providing borrowers with accurate and clear information and the full range of borrower benefits they are due. That is why I was pleased to join Senator Durbin in introducing the Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights Act.

Even more important to families' bottom line is reducing their payments and overall debt burden. We should allow borrowers with high fixed-rate loans to refinance at the lower rates approved on a bipartisan basis under the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act that became law last year. That is the premise of Senator Warren's Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act which I am also very proud to cosponsor.

I hope my colleagues will let us vote on this proposal so we can provide relief to millions of Americans who are struggling under the weight of student loan debt.

We also have to demand more responsibility from colleges and universities. While student loan debt skyrockets, we are also seeing college executive salaries climb ever higher. Clearly institutions need to have more skin in the game when it comes to student loans. That is why I introduced, along with many colleagues, the Protect Student Borrowers Act, specifically with Senators Durbin and Warren. The Protect Student Borrowers Act will hold colleges and universities accountable for student loan default by requiring them to repay a percentage of defaulted loans. As the percentage of students who default rises, the institution's risk-share payment will rise. Essentially, they will now have an interest, and a real interest, in ensuring that their students take out appropriate loans and they have coursework that leads to remunerative employment after they graduate. Colleges can play a key role in all of these things. Today it is a spotty record. Some are very good, some are indifferent, and some are very bad.

The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt and reduce default rates. Institutions can reduce or eliminate their payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management plan--again, if they talk to their students, if they advise them what to do, if they help them manage this debt.

The risk-sharing payments will be invested to help struggling borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and reducing shortfalls in the Pell Grant Program. This money will stay in the system to help other students.

With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program. I would argue a basic premise, that they will do a lot better as custodians and managers and advisers for the students when they have money at risk.

Right now, it is the students and their families who bear it all--and the government, if there is default. As a result, you don't have the active participation at the institutional level that could make a real difference.

In many respects, this is a lesson we learned, at a very expensive cost, during the financial crisis in the mortgage markets, where mortgage makers had no interest in who was borrowing money. They didn't care if they could pay it back, because the minute the paper was signed, they sold it off to the secondary market and they walked away to the next closing. We can't have that attitude pervasive in higher education.

We know there are many forces that are driving increases in costs in higher education, and one of the cost drivers is, frankly, the falloff on State contributions to public higher education. According to the State Higher Education Finance report, state spending per full-time equivalent student reached its lowest point in 25 years in 2011.

I have introduced the Partnerships for Affordability and Student Success Act to reinvigorate the Federal-State partnership for higher education with an emphasis on need-based grant aid. Remember back in the sixties and seventies, nearly 80 percent of the financing was grant aid. You didn't have to pay it back. You had a chance to get an education and start off without a lot of debt.

Simply put, I believe the States have to begin to renew their investment in education at the college level.

I urge the Senate to come together with a sense of real urgency on finding solutions to all of these issues, to move forward, and to give this generation and the next generation the same opportunity that many of us here took for granted in the sixties, seventies, and eighties.

I yield back the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.