Floor Statements

Madam President, I want to start by saying to Senator Reed how much I appreciate his leadership in putting forth this amendment

that takes a bad bill and turns it into something that will be helpful for our students and for our families struggling with student loan debt.

I also want to say how much I appreciate the leadership of Senator Harkin, Senator Durbin, Senator Manchin, Senator King, Leader Reid, all of whom have worked very hard and made best efforts under very difficult circumstances. We had a better bill that passed the Senate, but it was filibustered by Republicans and, as a result, we are where we are now.

Today the Senate will vote on a plan that would fundamentally change the way government sets interest rates on student loans. My colleagues who support this proposal say it will lower interest rates on loans for this year, and that is all that matters. That is the same thing credit card companies said when they sold zero-interest credit cards, and it is the same thing subprime mortgage lenders said when they sold teaser- rate mortgages. In all these cases, the bill comes due. Nobody disputes the fact that within a few years, according to our best estimates, all students will end up paying far higher interest rates on their loans than they do right now.

I want lower interest rates for students. With more than $1 trillion in existing student loans, our students are drowning in debt. We must find a way to address this crisis by lowering the interest rates, refinancing existing student loan debt, and bringing down the cost of college. But I cannot support a plan that asks tomorrow's students to pay more in order to finance lower rates today. And I cannot support a plan that raises interest rates on students in the long term while the government continues to make a profit off of them.

According to official government estimates, the Federal Government will make $184 billion in profits off student loans over the next 10 years under current law. This is obscene. Students should not be used to generate profits for the government. We should be doing everything we can to invest in students and to offer them the best deal we can on student loans, not find more ways to make money off them.

I am a realist about this. I know that eliminating those $184 billion in profits is going to be hard. The government and our Republican friends liked having that money to spend. I know that it will take time to wring the profits out of the system, and I know it will take compromise. But the plan before the Senate today is not a compromise, and it doesn't remove a single dime of profits from the student loan program. That is not an accident. It was designed that way, on purpose, with the high interest rates in the future, to preserve every penny of that $184 billion in profits. I want a compromise that actually saves some money for our students.

In fact, the plan we will vote on makes even more money off the backs of our students--an additional $715 million over the next 10 years. That is right; the total profits of the plan we will vote on are nearly $185 billion.

Some have sought to minimize these profits. They say this money is only a fraction of what students will borrow in the next decade. But I have spent months talking to families in Massachusetts, and it doesn't look small to them--families who are already squeezed by the economy and who are fighting to put kids through college, young graduates who are struggling to buy a home, buy a car, or to put away a little bit of savings in the future. That money should stay in their pockets, not go to the government. These students don't think that $184 billion in profits is small change. These students don't think adding another $715 million on top of these already huge profits can be ignored as rounding errors. These numbers are not abstractions, they are real dollars coming out of the pockets of hard-working Americans. Middle-class families work hard and pay their taxes, and now they have to pay an extra tax--an extra $184 billion tax to put their kids through college.

Meanwhile, this plan asks for nothing from our biggest corporations which take advantage of loopholes in the Tax Code to avoid paying their fair share. It asks for nothing from millionaires and billionaires who get away with paying less taxes than their secretaries. It asks for nothing from the enormously profitable companies that get billions of dollars in subsidies from the government every year. It is our kids-- our kids who are trying to get an education--who will pay more.

Senator Jack Reed has introduced an amendment that would change this. His amendment would substantially improve the plan before us today. His idea is a simple one: It would cap interest rates on all Federal loans at their current levels. These caps would allow students to get a good deal right now while the interest rates are low. But the caps would also ensure that when interest rates go up in a few years, as we all expect them to, our students will still be protected.

The Reed amendment is the only way to ensure that no students will be worse off under the new plan than if Congress did nothing at all. It makes sure we don't pit our students against each other, making tomorrow's students pay more so today's students can get a break.

Senator Reed's amendment creates these protections for students by taking a chunk of profit out of the student loan system and replacing it with 55/100th of 1 percent--about one-half of 1 percent--surtax on people whose annual income is more than $1 million.

This amendment would turn this bill into a true compromise. It does not come close to taking all the profits out of the student loan system, as I would like to see, but it is a very good first step in that direction.

Like most of the things we do around here, this is a choice. Anyone who says we can't afford this amendment is in effect saying it is more important to keep making profits off the backs of our kids than to ask millionaires to pay a tiny bit more. These dollars have to come from somewhere--college kids or millionaires.

A vote against this amendment is a vote in favor of higher interest rates for our students. A vote against this amendment is a vote in favor of making profits off the backs of our students. I don't believe that is how we build a future. I believe we build it together.

I support Senator Reed's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, it has been 18 days since the interest rate on new direct student loans doubled from 3.4 percent to nearly 7 percent. Students will head off to college in a few weeks and Congress still has not found a way to keep their interest rates low. In Massachusetts, our kids, our parents, our schools are worried.

I want to go over the history so we are all clear about how we got here. For months Democrats have argued we need to keep interest rates low. We have made at least three attempts to do this. For example, I introduced a bill that would have dropped interest rates on direct loans for 1 year to the same level at which banks borrow from the Federal Government, which is currently less than 1 percent. I introduced that proposal because I believe the Federal Government should invest in our students, not just in our biggest banks.

We also proposed to extend the current interest rates at 3.4 percent for 2 years, paid for by closing tax loopholes, and Senator Reed and Senator Hagan offered a bill to keep rates low for 1 year. All three proposals had two features in common: They cut costs for students, and they gave us some short-term breathing room to take on bigger problems, including how to refinance $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt, and how to reduce the overall costs of college for all our students.

When we brought the last two proposals to a vote, they won by a majority, but they didn't pass because the Republicans filibustered both bills. We could have kept rates low, but the Republicans, every single one of them, voted to block that. Instead, Republicans put together their own long-term plan. It was an amazing plan. According to official government accounting, it would have generated $184 billion in profit that the government is already projected to make by doubling interest rates on student loans over the next 10 years; and then the Republicans would have added another $16 billion in new profits.

That is billions in pure profit--profit after we have accounted for the cost of money, after the cost of administering the loan, and after the cost for bad debt losses. All those profits would be made off the backs of our kids who are trying to get an education.

So here we are, 18 days past the July 1 deadline, and students are being hurt because Republicans filibustered these reasonable plans, even though the plans had support from a majority of Senators.

Chairman Harkin, who has been a leader on this issue from the very start, has been doing his absolute best to find a solution that Republicans would not filibuster so when students start taking out loans in a few weeks they won't be the ones to pay for Republican obstruction. Others, such as Senator Jack Reed, Senator Stabenow, and the majority leader, have also worked very hard to find a solution. But here is the problem: From the very beginning, Republicans have dug in their heels and insisted that any new student loan proposal maintain the same $184 billion in profit the government will make on new student loans over the next 10 years. They insist that whatever we do, the government must make the same profits off the students they will make now by doubling the interest rate to 6.8 percent. They say: Whatever you do, make sure the government makes $184 billion off our students.

Many Senators who care deeply about this issue, such as Chairman Harkin, Senator Durbin, Senator Manchin, and Senator King, have been doing their best under these circumstances to help the students, and I applaud their commitment to our students. They have succeeded in getting at least some Republicans to support a proposal that will result in lower interest rates for some students for a couple of years. But in the end, this is a simple math problem. If Republicans insist we continue to make the same amount of profit in the student loan program, that means students in future years will have to pay even higher rates to make up the difference. In other words, kids who are sophomores in high school right now will end up paying even more so students who are sophomores in college today can pay a little less. I don't believe in pitting our kids against each other. I don't think high school sophomores should pay more so college sophomores can get a little break. In fact, I think this whole system stinks.

We should not go along with any plan that demands our students continue to produce huge profits for the government. This is wrong. Making billions and billions in profits off the backs of our students is obscene. The Republican position is that they refuse to give up a single dime of these profits. In fact, the latest proposal adds another $715 million in additional profits. The Republican position is we don't

need to close tax loopholes or to ask wealthy Americans to pay their fair share because we have a ready-made profit center for funding the Federal Government--middle-class families who are struggling to pay for college.

I have the deepest respect for the Senators who have tried so hard to come up with a deal for our students under these Republican conditions, and I have no doubt their intentions are honorable. But I can't support this proposal. I have fought hard for working families and middle-class families for nearly all of my grownup life. I fought back against credit card companies that put out zero-interest cards planning to make all their profits in the fine print. I fought back against teaser-rate mortgages that promised low rates in the first 2 years but then shot up to rates that pushed millions of people into foreclosure. And now the Senate is offering its own teaser-rate loan program? A great deal for students this year and next, but every kid who borrows after that gets slammed. That is not the business the U.S. Government should be in.

I understand compromise isn't always pretty, but there is no compromise in this bill. With the student loan rates now at 6.8 percent, if Congress does nothing, the government will make $184 billion in profits. Under the new proposal, the government will make the same $184 billion in profits plus another $715 million in additional profits. And that all comes directly off the backs of our students.

I want to see these profits go down. I know we may not be able to do it all at once, but we need to take a step now to lower the profits we make off the backs of our kids, not lock them in for the next 10 years. At a minimum, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of Senator Jack Reed to cap the interest rate under this plan at current law. That amendment is the only way to ensure no student ever ends up paying more than they would if Congress did nothing.

Long term, we need to do three things: First, eliminate government profits from new student loan programs, period. Second, refinance existing student loan debt to reduce the profits that are crushing our people. And third, reduce college costs so that American families can pay for college without burying themselves in debt. That is what we need to do. And no matter what happens with this current proposal, that is exactly for what I am going to keep fighting.

I appreciate the hard work my colleagues have done to try to defeat the Republican filibuster on keeping student loan rates low, but our students are drowning under $1 trillion in student loan debt, and I cannot support a compromise proposal that squeezes even more profits off our kids.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the renomination of Rich Cordray to serve as its Director.

Several years ago I began working on the idea for a consumer finance agency because our consumer credit system was badly broken. The laws were inconsistent, they were often arbitrary, and the basic rules changed for the same kind of product, such as a mortgage, depending on what kind of company sold it. People got cheated. And, as we know, in 2008, reckless and dangerous mortgage lenders and Wall Street traders who made money off those mortgages nearly brought our entire economy to its knees.

In 2010 Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The consumer protection part of that was the new consumer agency--the CFPB--which was designed as a watchdog to keep credit card issuers, mortgage lenders, and student loan marketers from cheating people.

Now, there was a lot of negotiation over the structure of this new agency. Hearing after hearing, markup after markup, floor vote after floor vote. But now the same big bank lobbyists are fighting the same fight and using the same tired old talking points about the consumer agency they were using years ago. You know, you really have to wonder just how much money they are making fighting this fight over and over. But now let's go ahead one more time and talk about the facts.

Congress built in many features to the consumer agency so that it would have strong oversight. Let me share just a few examples.

The CFPB is the only agency in government that is subject to a veto from other agencies over its rules--the only one. The CFPB is the only banking regulator that is subject to a statutory cap on its funding-- the only one. The CFPB Director is legally obligated to produce regular reports to Congress, to testify before Congress regularly, and to comply with audits. The CFPB also has now testified more than 30 times before Congress--30 times. In addition, the CFPB is subject to all the regular constraints in our system of government that constrain every agency--the Administrative Procedures Act, judicial review, and so on. And, of course, there is the ultimate oversight: Congress can overrule any CFPB regulation.

Since the agency became law in 2010, there have been two major developments. The first is that Director Cordray has done an excellent job. He has won praise from consumer and industry groups and from Republicans and Democrats for his balanced rulemaking and his measured approach. Small institutions such as community banks and credit unions--the ones that didn't cause this crisis--think he has been fair and effective. Other institutions that want a fair marketplace, those that don't want to make a profit by cheating their customers, like Rich too.

The agency is working. It has already forced credit card companies to refund nearly $\1/2\ billion they tricked consumers out of, and the complaint center is giving tens of thousands of people a chance to fight back when they are cheated. The agency has helped out military families, seniors, and students. It has helped a lot of people.

The agency has become the watchdog so many of us fought for, and Rich has surpassed even the high expectations I had for him 2 years ago when I stood next to him in the Rose Garden as the President nominated him for the first time to the CFPB.

There has been a second development since.

The need for certainty has been intensified. It has been nearly 5 years since the crisis and 3 years since the passage of Dodd-Frank. The banks need to know for sure who is in charge and what rules apply. They need to know that everyone will be playing by the same rules and exactly what those rules will be.

Here is an example. Both lenders and consumer groups have praised the CFPB's new mortgage rules. Now it is time for everyone to know that these rules--not the unpopular default rule in Dodd-Frank that the new rules replaced--are the law. That helps everyone.

The American people deserve a government that will hammer out good rules, that will enforce those rules, and then will get out of the way so the markets can work. They do not deserve endless relitigation of stale political disputes and the uncertainty caused by repeated filibusters of qualified and proven nominees.

I am new to the Senate, but I don't understand why this body accepts a system where this kind of political stalemate will not end in more government or less government but just in bad government--government that lacks the consistency, clarity, and predictability that honest businesses and hard-working families need to plan for the future.

I don't understand why we would let an honorable public servant such as Rich Cordray get stuck in this nonsense. I don't understand why, when everyone says Rich is terrific, we can't just vote on his appointment.

I know some Republicans and some lobbyists think if they filibuster Rich's appointment they are somehow going to be able to shut down the agency and protect the big banks from any meaningful consumer protection rules. They can use all the slogans they want and talk about things such as accountability, but outside the Halls of this Congress and the fancy lobbyist offices around Washington no one wants more fine print and more tricks and traps. No one thinks it is OK to cheat regular people and cut special deals for giant banks. No one wants to take cops off the beat so big banks can break the rules without being held accountable.

So let me be clear to those who think this filibuster will shut down the work of the new agency. Let me be crystal clear. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the law, and it is here to stay. Do your dirtiest with obstructing the confirmation of the new Director, but the agency will keep on doing what it does best: fighting for the American people.

We fought to get this consumer agency. We fought big banks and their army of lobbyists. We fought hard and we won. Now we have a strong and independent watchdog to stop the banks from cheating families. We are not giving up now.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the senior Senator from Arizona and to support the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act. I am honored to join Senators McCain, Cantwell, and King in introducing this bill. I particularly commend Senator McCain for his hard work and his long-time dedication on this issue.

Senator McCain is a real leader in the Senate. While we do not agree on every issue, he is a fighter who stands for what he believes. Senator McCain has worked hard to shed light on the too-big-to-fail problem. He has been thinking about how to bring back elements of Glass-Steagall for years. I am proud to join with him to speak about the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act. I am glad to be his partner in this endeavor.

Washington is a partisan place. This Congress has its share of partisan bills. But we have all joined together today because we want a safe future for our kids and for our grandkids. We know that 5 years ago Wall Streets's high-risk bets nearly brought our economy to its knees, disrupting the lives and livelihoods of hard-working Americans.

We know the economic downturn did not affect just Democrats or just Republicans or just Independents, it affected everyone.

Over the past 5 years we have made some real progress in dialing back the risk of future crises. But despite the progress that has been made, the biggest banks continue to threaten the economy. The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just 5 years ago. They have continued to engage in dangerous high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk.

The big banks were not always allowed to take on big risk while enjoying the benefits of both explicit and implicit taxpayer guarantees. Four years after the 1929 crash, Congress passed the Banking Act, or the Glass-Steagall Act as it is known, which is best known for separating the risky activities of investment banks from the core depository functions such as savings accounts and checking accounts that consumers rely on every day.

For years, Glass-Steagall played a central role in keeping our country safe. Traditional banking stayed separate from high-risk Wall Street banking. But big banks wanted the higher profits they could get from taking on more risk. Investors wanted access to the insured deposits of traditional banks. So Wall Street investors combined with the big banks to try to weaken and repeal Glass-Steagall. Starting in the 1980s, regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency responded, reinterpreting longstanding legal terms in ways that slowly broke down the wall between investment banking and depository banking. Finally, after 12 attempts to repeal, Congress eliminated the core provisions of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will reestablish the wall between commercial and investment banking, make our financial system more stable and more secure, and protect American families.

Like its 1933 predecessor, the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will separate traditional banks that offer checking and savings accounts and are insured by the FDIC from the riskier financial services. It will return banking--basic banking--to the basics.

The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act also puts in place some important improvements over the original Glass-Steagall. It reverses the interpretations the regulators used to weaken the original Glass- Steagall. Our bill also recognizes that financial markets have become more complicated since the 1930s, and it separates depository institutions from products that did not exist when Glass-Steagall was originally passed, such as structured and synthetic financial products, including complex derivatives and swaps.

The idea behind the bill is simple: Banking should be boring. Anyone who wants to take big risks should go to Wall Street, and they should stay away from the basic banking system.

I wish to be clear--the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will not by itself end too big to fail and implicit government subsidies, but it will make financial institutions smaller, safer, and move us in the right direction. By separating depository institutions from riskier activities, large financial institutions will shrink in size and won't be able to rely on Federal depository insurance as a safety net for their high-risk activities. It will stop the game these banks have played for too long. Heads, the big banks win and take all the profits and, tails, the taxpayer gets stuck with all the losses.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to reduce the risk in the financial system and to

dial back the likelihood of future crises.

Exactly 70 years ago the halls of the Senate filled with excitement and history when it passed the original Glass-Steagall. The financial industry at that time experienced some big immediate changes, but despite all kinds of claims to the contrary, Wall Street survived and the sky did not fall. In fact, the American people enjoyed a half century of financial stability and a strong, growing middle class. The regular financial crises that had occurred over and over before Glass- Steagall faded away, and our economy became stronger and more stable.

Few in Congress have been around long enough to have lived through the Great Depression that led to the first Glass-Steagall, but we were all around during the 2008 financial crisis. It has been 5 years since then, but our economy still has not fully recovered, and the downturn has had an impact everywhere--on our families, businesses, retirees, workers, schoolchildren, and college students. We need a banking system that serves the best interests of the American people, not just the few at the top. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act is an important step in the right direction. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the senior Senator from Arizona and to support the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act. I am honored to join Senators McCain, Cantwell, and King in introducing this bill. I particularly commend Senator McCain for his hard work and his long-time dedication on this issue.

Senator McCain is a real leader in the Senate. While we do not agree on every issue, he is a fighter who stands for what he believes. Senator McCain has worked hard to shed light on the too-big-to-fail problem. He has been thinking about how to bring back elements of Glass-Steagall for years. I am proud to join with him to speak about the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act. I am glad to be his partner in this endeavor.

Washington is a partisan place. This Congress has its share of partisan bills. But we have all joined together today because we want a safe future for our kids and for our grandkids. We know that 5 years ago Wall Streets's high-risk bets nearly brought our economy to its knees, disrupting the lives and livelihoods of hard-working Americans.

We know the economic downturn did not affect just Democrats or just Republicans or just Independents, it affected everyone.

Over the past 5 years we have made some real progress in dialing back the risk of future crises. But despite the progress that has been made, the biggest banks continue to threaten the economy. The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just 5 years ago. They have continued to engage in dangerous high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk.

The big banks were not always allowed to take on big risk while enjoying the benefits of both explicit and implicit taxpayer guarantees. Four years after the 1929 crash, Congress passed the Banking Act, or the Glass-Steagall Act as it is known, which is best known for separating the risky activities of investment banks from the core depository functions such as savings accounts and checking accounts that consumers rely on every day.

For years, Glass-Steagall played a central role in keeping our country safe. Traditional banking stayed separate from high-risk Wall Street banking. But big banks wanted the higher profits they could get from taking on more risk. Investors wanted access to the insured deposits of traditional banks. So Wall Street investors combined with the big banks to try to weaken and repeal Glass-Steagall. Starting in the 1980s, regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency responded, reinterpreting longstanding legal terms in ways that slowly broke down the wall between investment banking and depository banking. Finally, after 12 attempts to repeal, Congress eliminated the core provisions of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will reestablish the wall between commercial and investment banking, make our financial system more stable and more secure, and protect American families.

Like its 1933 predecessor, the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will separate traditional banks that offer checking and savings accounts and are insured by the FDIC from the riskier financial services. It will return banking--basic banking--to the basics.

The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act also puts in place some important improvements over the original Glass-Steagall. It reverses the interpretations the regulators used to weaken the original Glass- Steagall. Our bill also recognizes that financial markets have become more complicated since the 1930s, and it separates depository institutions from products that did not exist when Glass-Steagall was originally passed, such as structured and synthetic financial products, including complex derivatives and swaps.

The idea behind the bill is simple: Banking should be boring. Anyone who wants to take big risks should go to Wall Street, and they should stay away from the basic banking system.

I wish to be clear--the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will not by itself end too big to fail and implicit government subsidies, but it will make financial institutions smaller, safer, and move us in the right direction. By separating depository institutions from riskier activities, large financial institutions will shrink in size and won't be able to rely on Federal depository insurance as a safety net for their high-risk activities. It will stop the game these banks have played for too long. Heads, the big banks win and take all the profits and, tails, the taxpayer gets stuck with all the losses.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to reduce the risk in the financial system and to

dial back the likelihood of future crises.

Exactly 70 years ago the halls of the Senate filled with excitement and history when it passed the original Glass-Steagall. The financial industry at that time experienced some big immediate changes, but despite all kinds of claims to the contrary, Wall Street survived and the sky did not fall. In fact, the American people enjoyed a half century of financial stability and a strong, growing middle class. The regular financial crises that had occurred over and over before Glass- Steagall faded away, and our economy became stronger and more stable.

Few in Congress have been around long enough to have lived through the Great Depression that led to the first Glass-Steagall, but we were all around during the 2008 financial crisis. It has been 5 years since then, but our economy still has not fully recovered, and the downturn has had an impact everywhere--on our families, businesses, retirees, workers, schoolchildren, and college students. We need a banking system that serves the best interests of the American people, not just the few at the top. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act is an important step in the right direction. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. President, I rise this evening in support of Keep Student Loans Affordable, the bill that has been introduced by Senators Reed and Hagan. We have been talking a lot in the last few hours about student loans, about the cost of student loans, and we have talked particularly about subsidized loans.

I just want to start this by pointing out that ``subsidized loans'' is not the right term. No one is subsidizing any of our students. The lowest cost loans the U.S. Government issues today produce a profit for the government. In other words, who is doing the subsidizing? Our students are doing the subsidizing. They are the ones who are creating the profits for the U.S. Government.

Let's talk about those profits. This year those profits, as the Presiding Officer rightly pointed out, will be more than $50 billion. Those are profits made on the student loans that are already outstanding and the profits we are going to start making off the new loans when the interest rate doubles at 6.8 percent.

Under this bill, Keep Student Loans Affordable Act, we are talking about how to prevent making even more profits off our students--a short-term patch to hold interest rates steady for all of our students while we try to attack the core problems.

The problem we have as we deal with this, and the problem with the Republican proposal, is right now the new loans are scheduled to produce $184 billion in profits for the U.S. Government over the next 10 years.

Let me say that again. At the current interest rate of 6.8 percent, which is where it went as of July 1 since Congress didn't act, the U.S. Government will make $184 billion in profits off our students over the next 10 years.

The Republicans have put forward a plan, and they have said in their plan that they want to be ``budget neutral'' or ``deficit neutral.'' They have used both terms. But understand what that means. The proposal they are putting forward, in fact, produces $184 billion in profits for the U.S. Government. In fact, the Republican plan goes just a little beyond that and produces an extra $1 billion in profits for the U.S. Government. That is what the Republicans are putting forward.

How can you sell something that says we are going to make $185 billion off the backs of our students? The answer is, according to the Republicans, to offer them a teaser rate. Tell them that just next year we are going to keep that interest rate low. The year after that, well, it might be a little bit higher, and the year after that it might just be a little higher than that, and don't ask any questions about the years going forward.

But understand this: Senator Alexander, for whom I have deep respect, made the point he just wanted to use the CBO's scoring numbers. That is the neutral arbiter of what things cost. What does the CBO say about the Republican plan? The answer is it will produce more--that is just a little bit more--than the same $184 billion in profits that come from doubling the student loan interest rate to 6.8 percent.

In other words, what the Republicans are proposing is the same thing you got in the mail when you got this zero percent interest teaser rate credit card. Boy, we will give you something cheap up front, but don't read the fine print, and don't see what is going to happen on down the line--or the same thing that happened with the teaser-rate mortgages. They were nice low payments at the beginning, until the whole thing exploded later on.

That is the Republican plan. It is not a fix, it is just a different way to make $184 billion in profits off the backs of our students.

What the Democrats are proposing is a plan that says: Don't raise the interest rates on anybody. Just keep them where they are, including 3.4 percent on our Stafford loans. Let's keep it there.

Here is a point I want to make that I haven't heard anybody talking about. What the Democratic proposal has in it is an acknowledgement that the U.S. Government is going to make less money doing that because there is no back end to make this up. Because the U.S. Government is going to lose money--it is not going to make as much money by doing that--this plan has something in it to pay for it, to offset the cost to the budget. We have proposed closing a tax loophole, raising about $4 billion in new revenues so we don't make that $4 billion in revenues off our kids immediately.

In other words, if we are going to reduce the profits we are trying to make from our kids, there has to be a way to pay for it. The plan proposed by the Democrats is short term. It is a 1-year fix, and it has a proposal to pay for it because it actually proposes reducing the profits the U.S. Government makes.

Take a look at the Republican plan. There is no pay in the Republican plan because it proposes to continue to make that $184 billion over the next 10 years.

So that is what this is about. We know what we need in the long term is to solve two big problems: The first is the $1 trillion in outstanding student loan debt. We have to find a better way to deal with it, a way that is not continuing to produce profits for the U.S. government. The second is the rising cost of college. We have to address that, and it is going to be a hard problem to tackle. We can't solve it in a matter of a few days. It takes time to do it.

So the Democrats propose: Don't raise interest rates on anyone. Don't double my rate. Keep them where they are, and let's buy a year with a short-term patch in order to address the systemic problems we need to address--the outstanding student loan debt and the rising cost of college for all of our students.

This is our chance to help our students. This is a small downpayment. It is a small help for some of our students and a real commitment that we are going to make a difference in the future. It is not a proposal that says we are going to try to fool them, that we are going to reduce prices just for a little while and then sock somebody else on the back end. That is not what this should be about. That is not what the U.S. Government should be doing. It is our responsibility, it is our opportunity to invest in our students.

The Democrats propose we get started on that and we get started on it tomorrow. I support the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act, and I commend Senator Reed and Senator Hagan for their work. I hope tomorrow this body will come together and pass it for our students and for our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 192, 193, 194; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 94, S. Res. 151.

I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 10, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized and that following the remarks of the two leaders, the time until 12 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that at 12 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1238, the student loan bill.

At noon tomorrow, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the student loan bill.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

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

The interest rate on student loans doubled on July 1. Because Congress failed to act, our lowest income students are now paying twice as much on these new loans. While students are paying more, the Federal Government is boosting its own profits--$51 billion in profits from the student loan programs in 2013 alone. This is just plain wrong.

The government is making obscene profits on these loans--profits we can and should cut back on to help our kids who are struggling to pay for college. But Republicans have repeatedly blocked our efforts to pass a short-term fix that would save students from higher interest rates.

This week the Senate will vote to fix this problem. The bill, Keep Student Loans Affordable Act, was introduced by Senators Jack Reed and Kay Hagan. It would drop the rate on direct student loans back down to 3.4 percent for 1 year, retroactively as of July 1, and give Congress time to develop a plan to do the three things we need to do: Reform student loan interest rates on new loans, refinance $1 trillion in existing debt, and lower college costs for all of our kids.

Republicans have a different approach. Despite the obscene profits of the current program, they propose to make even more money from students. Their current proposal would bring in an extra $1 billion in profits off the backs of our students.

Listen to the numbers. New loans will produce $184 billion in profits for the U.S. Government over the next 10 years. That includes the 6.8 percent interest on direct loans, all the borrowing costs, all the administrative costs, and all the bad debt losses for the program.

Let me say that again: The new student loans, including direct loans at 6.8 percent, will make $184 billion in profits for the government over the next 10 years--and the Republican solution is to increase those profits for the U.S. Government. In other words, their solution to the rising interest rate problem is to make students pay even more.

Some of my colleagues are telling students the plan they have is a great deal. But their argument is the same argument that was used by the slick operators who sold teaser rate mortgages and the ones who sold zero interest rate credit cards. Sure, the first couple of years will be cheaper, but they don't want anyone to look at what happens after that.

Fortunately, our students are smarter than that. They read the fine print. They know in the end this debate boils down to simple math--math that our students understand, even if some people in Congress wish they didn't.

Our students sent a letter to Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell with a clear message: A bad deal is worse than no deal at all. Our students need a plan that costs them less money, not a plan that costs them more.

I talk a lot about math, but the Senate's decision about student loans is a decision about our values and a decision about how we build a future. Investing in our students will allow them to get good jobs and give them a shot to make it in America, but that same investment will also create new industries and grow the economy for everyone.

We shouldn't treat our students like a profit center. We shouldn't ask them to pay an extra tax to go to school. And we shouldn't try to trick them by shuffling numbers around, hitting them with teaser rates, and declaring a problem is solved while the students just keep paying more and more.

There are real problems in higher education today: Skyrocketing college costs, historic levels of student debt, and high borrowing rates. It is going to take time to develop a solution that works, and there is no magic math that will make student loan profits disappear or make college tuition shrink without some sacrifice. But right now, students are the only ones who are sacrificing. They are giving up the dream of owning a home or being able to retire just so they can keep paying for college.

Congress can ease the burden on our students, and we should be committed to doing just that because this is how

we build a stronger middle class. This is how we build a better future for our entire country. It is a first step, but it is a good one.

Congress can pass the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. It is a short-term patch to keep interest rates on new loans from doubling for 1 year while Congress develops a plan to reform student loans and to make college more affordable. I support the measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I will be brief.

Mr. President, for 4 months I have had the privilege of serving alongside my good friend Mo Cowan. From the time he was sworn in, Mo hit the ground running. Even though his time here was short, Mo has been a committed and strong advocate for the people of Massachusetts and here in Washington.

As former chief of staff to Governor Patrick, Mo brought to the Senate a deep knowledge of the issues facing our Commonwealth. Through his committee work and his outreach to his constituents, his careful consideration of important national issues, he has worked tirelessly to ensure that the interests of the people of Massachusetts are well represented and the people of America are well served.

He has built great relationships and earned the respect of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I very much enjoyed getting to know Mo's wonderful family: his smart, talented, and patient wife Stacy and their two young boys. I am sure Grant and Miles are looking forward to having their dad closer to home again.

Mo has been a dedicated public servant, and his time in the Senate only adds to his fine record of service on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth. It has been an honor to work together with Mo fighting together for Massachusetts families. I wish him and I wish his family the very best. It has been an honor to be a partner of Senator Cowan in the Senate.

Thank you, Mo.