Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to start by commending Senator Whitehouse for his extraordinary leadership. For 5 years he has worked on this issue. He proved from the very beginning that he was open to consumer groups that came to talk to him about a problem, and he has been committed to helping working families and that has been his central goal. It is a great honor to stand this afternoon with Senator Whitehouse and to talk about a bill that can advance that goal--helping working families.

For more than two centuries a State could pass a usury law and enforce it against anyone who was lending money in the State. Congress and Federal agencies played a central role in our banking policies, but our system allowed States to play an important role too. The States decided locally what were the highest interest rates they wanted their citizens to be charged. We honored the traditions of federalism, and things worked pretty well. The States protected their citizens. Consumer financial products, such as credit cards, were easy to understand and they were safe for consumers. They were not loaded with tricks and traps.

That changed starting in 1978, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. In that decision, the Court interpreted a banking law that Congress had passed back in 1863, and they decided the statute meant the States could not keep an out-of-State lender from charging high rates within the State.

That all sounds pretty technical, but the result was that credit card companies flocked to move their headquarters to States that had little consumer protection. Then other States raced to the bottom, repealing their consumer protection laws, hoping to attract more business to their State. The basic idea that States could protect their citizens from whatever tricks or traps the banks wanted to try simply disappeared.

So I rise today to join my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, to introduce the Empowering States' Rights to Protect Consumers Act. This bill will restore the ability of States to enforce their own rules against all lenders that do business within the State. It does not tell States what rules to put in place, it lets States decide for themselves.

The Credit CARD Act, enacted in 2009, and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd-Frank act in 2010, were critical steps in the right direction, and they are doing a good deal to help protect consumers. But we need to recognize the value of State partnerships by empowering our States to play a role too and by restoring their ability to serve as a laboratory of democracy. If and when credit card companies develop the next generation of tricks and traps, buried in fine print and legalese, States ought to be able to respond with their own rules and protections if they deem it necessary.

I ask my colleagues to carefully consider this bill.

I again thank Senator Whitehouse for his extraordinary leadership on this. It is a great honor to stand today and cosponsor this bill with him.

Mr. President, I want to start by commending Senator Whitehouse for his extraordinary leadership. For 5 years he has worked on this issue. He proved from the very beginning that he was open to consumer groups that came to talk to him about a problem, and he has been committed to helping working families and that has been his central goal. It is a great honor to stand this afternoon with Senator Whitehouse and to talk about a bill that can advance that goal--helping working families.

For more than two centuries a State could pass a usury law and enforce it against anyone who was lending money in the State. Congress and Federal agencies played a central role in our banking policies, but our system allowed States to play an important role too. The States decided locally what were the highest interest rates they wanted their citizens to be charged. We honored the traditions of federalism, and things worked pretty well. The States protected their citizens. Consumer financial products, such as credit cards, were easy to understand and they were safe for consumers. They were not loaded with tricks and traps.

That changed starting in 1978, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. In that decision, the Court interpreted a banking law that Congress had passed back in 1863, and they decided the statute meant the States could not keep an out-of-State lender from charging high rates within the State.

That all sounds pretty technical, but the result was that credit card companies flocked to move their headquarters to States that had little consumer protection. Then other States raced to the bottom, repealing their consumer protection laws, hoping to attract more business to their State. The basic idea that States could protect their citizens from whatever tricks or traps the banks wanted to try simply disappeared.

So I rise today to join my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, to introduce the Empowering States' Rights to Protect Consumers Act. This bill will restore the ability of States to enforce their own rules against all lenders that do business within the State. It does not tell States what rules to put in place, it lets States decide for themselves.

The Credit CARD Act, enacted in 2009, and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd-Frank act in 2010, were critical steps in the right direction, and they are doing a good deal to help protect consumers. But we need to recognize the value of State partnerships by empowering our States to play a role too and by restoring their ability to serve as a laboratory of democracy. If and when credit card companies develop the next generation of tricks and traps, buried in fine print and legalese, States ought to be able to respond with their own rules and protections if they deem it necessary.

I ask my colleagues to carefully consider this bill.

I again thank Senator Whitehouse for his extraordinary leadership on this. It is a great honor to stand today and cosponsor this bill with him.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about trade agreements and the impact they have on our economy. Trade agreements affect access to foreign markets and our level of imports and exports. They also affect a wide variety of public policy issues--everything from wages, jobs, the environment, and the Internet, to monetary policy, pharmaceuticals, and financial services.

Many people are deeply interested in tracking the trajectory of trade negotiations, but if they do not have reasonable access to see the terms of the agreements under negotiation, then they do not have any real input. Without transparency, the benefits of an open marketplace of ideas are reduced enormously.

I am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the U.S. Trade Representative and with one ongoing trade agreement in particular: the Trans-Pacific Partnership. For months, the Trade Representative, who negotiates on our behalf, has been unwilling to provide any public access to the composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations. The composite bracketed text includes proposed language from the United States and also from other countries, and it serves as the focal point for negotiations. The Trade Representative has allowed Members of Congress to access the text, and I appreciate that, but there is no substitute for public transparency.

I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backward. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.

I believe in transparency and democracy, and I think the U.S. Trade Representative should too. So I asked the President's nominee to be Trade Representative Michael Froman three questions: The first: Would he commit to releasing the composite bracketed text. The second: If not, would he commit to releasing a scrubbed version of the bracketed text that made anonymous which country proposed which provision. And I want to note that even the Bush administration put out a scrubbed version during the negotiations around the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement. Third, I asked Mr. Froman if he would provide more transparency behind what information is made available to outside advisers. Currently, there are about 600 outside advisers who have access to sensitive information, and the roster includes a wide diversity of industry representatives and some from labor and some from NGOs. But there is no transparency around who gets what information or whether they are all getting the same things, and I think that is a real problem.

Mr. Froman's response to my three questions was clear: no, no, and no. He will not commit to making this information public so that the public can track what is going on.

So I am voting against Mr. Froman's nomination later today because I believe we need a new direction from the Trade Representative--a direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate. The American people have the right to know more about our negotiations that will have a dramatic impact on our working men and women, on our environment, on our economy, on the Internet.

We should have a serious conversation about our trade policies because these issues matter. But it all starts with the transparency of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I agree with Senator Baucus that trade issues are powerfully important to our economy. They involve public policy issues that range from jobs to the Internet.

Many people are interested in following our trade policies, and they need to have enough information to be able to offer real input into the process. I think the Trade Representative needs to be committed to transparency and democracy.

Last week I asked Mr. Froman if he would commit to making public the bracketed text for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I asked him to provide more information about what trade advisers were receiving what information. Each request that I made about a commitment to public revealing information, he answered with a no.

So I rise to repeat my opposition to Mr. Froman's nomination as the next U.S. Trade Representative. We need a new direction from the Trade Representative--a direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

May I be heard for 10 seconds?

I have no doubt that Mr. Froman will be a highly qualified Trade Representative. There is a point of principle at stake here, and that point of principle is that we should not be moving forward on trade agreements without making more of this information public. This is what this is about. Without that, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam President, in less than 3 weeks the interest rates on subsidized student loans will double if Congress fails to act. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. Senator Harkin and Senator Reed have proposed a plan to hold the interest rate steady at 3.4 percent for 2 years. This will give Congress time to develop a long-term plan to address the rising burden of student loan debt, a long-term plan that keeps interest rates low and that addresses rising college costs.

Two weeks ago a majority of Senators in this body voted to approve this temporary extension to provide a measure of relief to our families. Unfortunately, Republicans have decided to filibuster this bill, blocking the measure that has majority support. That is not the way our democracy should work.

I met with students in Massachusetts earlier this week. They told me we need to fix this problem. They said to me: Do not double my rate. Do not double my rate. Dozens of Massachusetts universities have asked us to step in and help their students. Petitions urging us to stop interest rates from doubling on July 1 have collected more than 1 million signatures. Students, parents, families are asking for help. They do not have time for politics.

I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration of Calendar No. 74, S. 953, the Student Loan Affordability Act, and that the bill be read a third time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening objection or debate.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to focus on three words Senator Burr discussed, and they are ``unsustainable,'' ``everybody,'' and ``fix.''

I heard all three, and I think all three are very important words here. Let's go through this and figure out what it is the Senator is proposing and what it is we need to do.

Right now we have a student loan program that produces $51 billion in profits this year off the backs of our students, $51 billion. Yes, I think that is unsustainable. We must find a way to deal with that.

In fact, Republicans did put a proposal on the table. Their proposal would have increased profits to the Federal Government from the student loan program by another $16 billion.

The Republicans' plan was to say let's take a debt load that is already too difficult for students to deal with and let's make it harder. That is, in my view, completely unsustainable. We have to do better than that.

The question the Senator also raises is one about everybody: We need to fix this problem for everybody. I agree with the Senator. We do, indeed, need to fix this problem for everybody. Let's think about what this is.

What we are talking about is student interest rates that are about to double. What the Democrats have proposed, what I propose in the original request for a UC, is that we not let those interest rates double. We use that time to try to develop a comprehensive way to deal with the rising costs of college and with the trillion dollars of college loan debt that is outstanding.

In other words, we recognize this is a narrow slice. This is to prevent our students from facing a double interest rate, a doubling of their interest rates on July 1. We say we would use this time in order to get a comprehensive answer for all of our students.

What the Senator has proposed and what he has asked for unanimous consent on is not that. It is only a narrow slice of the question of how we are going to deal with interest rates on loans going forward. It doesn't deal with the interest of the loans outstanding, and it certainly doesn't deal with the rising costs of college. They want to put this problem to bed by saying that one problem we will deal with and we will move on. Let's keep in mind we have seen what the Republican plan will do. The Republican plan will cost our students an additional $16 billion. That is the plan. Take a problem and make it worse but not something that is sustainable and not something that fixes it for everyone.

The third point he raised is he used the question of fix. I think fix is exactly what we are talking about.

We have three different kinds of problems we need to solve. We have the problem of $1 trillion of outstanding student loan debt that is crushing our students. We have the problem of rising costs for college. We must deal with this. We have the immediate problem of interest rates about to double for our students.

We can fix one of those problems in the next 2 weeks. We could fix it today. We could fix it by unanimous consent right now.

Then we could agree to sit down, on a bipartisan basis, and we could work together to try to solve the larger problems. That is what our students are asking for. That is what we need to do.

One last point I wish to make, I notice that Senator Burr cites the Congressional Budget Office study. Let's just be clear what that same study decided right from the beginning. The Congressional Budget Office projects the total cost to the Federal Government of student loans disbursed between 2013 and 2023--I believe that is what the Senator was referring to--will be negative; that is, the student loan program will produce savings that reduce the debt. Don't let anyone be confused by what that language means--produce savings that reduce the debt--meaning our kids have become a profit center for the Government. Right now this government will lend to large financial institutions at less than 1 percent interest, but the plan has continued to produce profits off the backs of our kids, and not small profits, tens of billions of dollars of profits.

There is $51 billion projected this year. The Republicans are asking for another $16 billion. We can't do that.

We need a sustainable answer. We need a fix that encompasses all of our students, all of our families.

For that reason, I object.

I believe, if I understand this correctly, what we are trying to do is protect the subsidized Stafford loans. What I understand the Republicans have tried to do is protect all the new loans so no one is dealing with all the loans that already have been issued and are at much higher interest rates. This is how I understand it. If the Senator is talking about wanting----

Then I assume the Senator means all the students with student loan debt, and that is not my proposal.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I wish to make sure I understand. Have the Republicans put any proposal on the table that will deal with all of the outstanding student loan debt?

I just wanted to return to this question, since the Senator has raised it, about the Congressional Budget Office. Let's all be clear about what the current student loan interest rates produce for the government.

The CBO, the agency in charge of estimating these costs for the government, maintains that this year the government will make $51 billion in profits from the student loans. Their most recent report on this--I read the language earlier--is clear and direct. We will make a profit.

The CBO uses this accounting method because it reflects reality. It is the reality of how these loans affect the Federal budget. The CBO's method takes into account the cost of lending money from the Treasury and the projected money that will be returned to the Treasury.

It takes into account the risk that some students will default; in other words, it is basic math.

Some people don't like the idea that the government is profiting from the student loans. Their approach is to try to change the accounting rules to treat the government as if it were a private bank rather than the Federal Government, which it is.

The government is not a bank in a private market. If we want to reduce the profits from student loans, then we should actually reduce the profits from the student loans, not change the map, not bury our heads in the sand and pretend those profits don't exist.

Let's go back to what the Senator has proposed. The Republicans propose that we take $51 billion in profits that will currently be made from the backs of our students and add another $16 billion in profits off the backs of our students. This is fundamentally wrong. It is not sustainable.

I think the larger point the Senator makes is one that says we have a big problem. We need to talk about the debt that is outstanding. We need to talk about how we are going to pay for college over time. We can't do that in the next 2 weeks.

We need to make sure interest rates don't double, and then we need to address this problem. I am pleased to work with people on both sides of the aisle.

No.

Look, we can go back over the CBO numbers, but what is clear right now is what the CBO has made clear. We will make $51 billion in profits off the backs of our students. The Republicans propose to make another $16 billion off the backs of our students. We can't do that. It is unsustainable. Our students are asking for more.

Madam President, yesterday, I voted for the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013--the farm bill--which makes important reforms, such as ending the practice of direct payment agricultural subsidies, and provides strong support to our local farmers which will help stabilize our food policies and increase access to fresh produce for the next decade.

I especially want to acknowledge and thank Senator Cowan, with whom I worked closely, for his successful effort to include in this bill a provision that was also advocated by former Senator Kerry to help our struggling fishermen in Massachusetts. This provision extends eligibility in the emergency disaster loan program to fishermen.

When our farmers are struck by disasters, they have access to low- interest emergency disaster--EM--loans available through USDA's Farm Service Agency. These loans have been used in the past by farmers, ranchers, and aqua farmers to help recover from crop production losses. Now, our Nation's fishermen will also have access to this important loan program.

I am also proud to have worked with Senator Cowan on his amendment to authorize the Department of Agriculture to conduct a study to propose a method for a voluntary crop insurance program for seafood harvesters. Fisherman and farmers face the same economic hardships when there are significant drops in production. This study is an important step toward providing the seafood industry with an insurance product to reduce their risk. I thank Senator Cowan and former Senator Kerry for their leadership on these efforts to help out fisherman who experiencing very difficult economic hardships.

Although I am proud to support the broad policies in this legislation, there are certain measures in this bill that I strongly oppose and that I will push to modify when the bill is considered in conference.

In particular, I am deeply concerned with the changes that the farm bill makes to the SNAP program. I will continue working to ensure that assistance is available to all families who need help putting food on the table.

Mr. President, there are only 3 weeks left until interest rates on new subsidized student loans will double. If we fail to act, the cost of college will increase for millions of students. There are strong proposals on the table that would keep interest rates low while Congress has time to work out a permanent solution. Yet Congress fails to act. Why? Two issues: Money and values.

First, money. Some have argued we can't afford to keep

interest rates low, but let's be clear. Right now, the

Federal Government is making a profit from our students. Last

month the Congressional Budget Office calculated the

government will make $51 billion this year off student loans.

Think about that: $51 billion--and that is $16 billion higher

than the earlier estimate. We have the money to cut interest

rates if we are willing to reduce the profits we make from

our students.

Unfortunately, Republicans see it differently. Two weeks ago House Republicans passed a plan that would produce higher profits off the backs of our college students. And here in the Senate, Senator Coburn has introduced a similar bill that makes student loans more profitable--all at the expense of our college students. This is wrong. We should reject Republican plans to make more profits off our students.

Senator Coburn talks about how his plan is similar to the low- interest rate

banks offer through the Federal Reserve, but he has that wrong. The big banks borrow at less than 1 percent, but Senator Coburn would charge students an additional 3 percent on top of the 10-year Treasury rates. His plan would produce billions more in profits for the government-- money that comes straight out of the pockets of our struggling students. We have the money to help our students. We don't need to squeeze them harder.

The second issue is values. Our college students already see that the system is rigged against them. They watched Wall Street bankers get bailed out while their parents lost jobs and struggled to hang on to their homes. They see special subsidies for companies that ship jobs overseas and exploit tax loopholes while the investment in their future--in jobs here at home--disappears.

Now Senator Coburn plans to squeeze more profits out of our students. He is fine with the government handing out loans to big banks at incredibly low rates, but he wants our students to pay more. That is not who we are. This does not reflect our values. We see students drowning in debt and we should be there to help.

Senator Harkin and Senator Reed have shown great leadership on this issue. They offer simple solutions to prevent interest rates from doubling. Their plan would maintain the current 3.4-percent interest rate for 2 more years.

I have also introduced a short-term plan that would cut interest rates even more by offering the exact same low rates the big banks get through the Federal Reserve discount window. I introduced this 1-year deal because we need immediate relief while we develop a long-term plan.

So I rise today in support of the Reed-Harkin proposal to freeze interest rates on subsidized loans for 2 more years. Their proposal prevents the rates from doubling on July 1 and it also gives us time to develop a plan that aligns with our values and supports our students.

This is about our values. Have we become a people who will support our big banks with nearly free loans while we crush our kids who are trying to get an education? The student loan program makes obscene profits on the backs of our students. This is morally wrong and we must put a stop to it.

Our students don't have high-paying lobbyists to look out for their interests, but they do have their voices. Petitions urging Congress to pass a short-term plan for interest rates to prevent them from doubling have already collected more than 1 million signatures. Our students and their families are asking for what is right. They are asking for something we can easily afford. Let's show them government can work for them.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking the senior Senator from Virginia both for advancing a nomination that we will vote on this afternoon and for his comments about Gina McCarthy. She is, as the Senator says, a quite remarkable person, and she will be a wonderful director of the Environmental Protection Agency. I very much appreciate the Senator's comments about her, and I know Ms. McCarthy does as well, and the people of Massachusetts do as well.

I rise today to do something very simple. I ask my colleagues to give a simple vote to the President's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency. This is not fancy or ambitious, it is just a basic principle of good government in our constitutional system.

When the Founders of our Republic came together to write the Constitution, they knew the President would need help in administering this great and expansive Nation. Without help, without a government that was staffed, justice would not be established, our common defense would be threatened, and the blessings of liberty we hoped to secure through our laws would go unfulfilled.

The Founders of our Republic gave to the President the task of nominating individuals to serve and gave us the responsibility to advise on and consent to these appointments. For more than 200 years this process has worked. Presidents over the years have nominated thousands of qualified men and women who were willing to serve in key executive branch positions.

The Senate has considered nominations in a timely fashion and taken up-or-down votes. Of course, there have been bumps along the way, but we have never seen anything like this. Time and again, Members of this body have resorted to procedural technicalities and flatout obstructionism to block qualified nominees.

At the moment, there are 85 judicial vacancies in the U.S. courts, some of which are classified as ``judicial emergencies.'' That is more than double the number of judicial vacancies at the comparable point during President George W. Bush's second term. Yet right now there are 10 nominees awaiting a vote in the Senate, and they have not gotten one.

But that is not all. The nomination of the Secretary of Defense was held up for weeks and then filibustered. The nominee for the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, has been held up on an obscure technical maneuver. Then, of course, there is the determined effort to block Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--not because he is unqualified; in fact, he has received praise from industry and consumer groups alike. Even the Republicans who blocked him have praised his fairness and his evenhandedness. No, Rich Cordray is blocked because some Members of this body do not like the agency he heads. They know they do not have the votes to get rid of it or to weaken it, so instead they are holding the Director's nomination hostage.

Now we get to Gina McCarthy. This past Thursday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee was scheduled to vote on Gina McCarthy's nomination to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Right before the scheduled vote, all the Republicans decided not to show up. Under Senate rules, that meant there was no quorum and thus the vote could not take place.

The President has done his job. He named an outstanding nominee for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy. Gina has dedicated her professional life to the protection of our public health and to the stewardship of our environment. She was confirmed to her previous position at the EPA as Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation by voice vote without objection.

Just to be clear, this means most of the Members of this Chamber have already voted to approve her once before.

Gina also has a long record of working effectively across party lines. She served under Republican and Democratic Governors alike, including working for Gov. Mitt Romney, the most recent Republican Presidential nominee. Her record in Massachusetts was stellar, and she has done all of us in the Commonwealth proud through her service in Washington.

Gina herself has also done her job and more. She has answered a staggering 1,120 questions from the Environment and Public Works Committee. That is the largest number of questions ever asked of a nominee facing a Senate confirmation. To put this in some perspective, 4 years ago the last confirmed Administrator of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, was asked 157 questions during her nomination process.

When Congress convened in January, many of us, both veterans and newcomers, were concerned that this kind of obstructionism would persist in the new Congress. We pushed hard for changes to the filibuster rules. We understood passions on both sides of the issue, and we listened to our colleagues. Ultimately, the two sides reached a compromise, a compromise that many of us were concerned about, but it included a clear understanding that the Democrats would not make substantial changes to the filibuster and, in return, the Republicans would not abuse its use. But in the past 3 months, abuse has been piled on abuse. Republicans have prevented votes on judges, on agency heads, and on administration Secretaries.

This is wrong. Republicans can vote no on any nominee they choose, but blocking a vote is nothing more than obstructionism. Blocking the business of government, the business of protecting people from cheating credit card companies, from mercury in the water or from unfair labor practices must stop.

The President has done his job. Gina McCarthy has done her job. Now it is time for the Senate to do its job. Gina McCarthy deserves a vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, during the period of April 15, 2013 through April 24, 2013, I was unavoidably absent from the following votes as a result of events related to the tragic terrorist bombings in Boston, MA--roll call votes 96, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, and 110. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on vote 96 on the nomination of Beverly Reid O'Connell of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California; no on vote 104 on Amendment No. 717 to S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013; yes on vote 105 on Amendment No. 730 to S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013; yes on vote 106 on the nomination of Derrick Kahala Watson, of Hawaii, to be United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii; yes on vote 108 on the nomination of Jane Kelly, of Iowa, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit; yes on vote 109 on the nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell, of West Virginia, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and yes on vote 110 on adoption of the Motion to Proceed to S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Mr. President, today, we honor the service of our brave men and women in the law enforcement community. As we look around at American flags flying at half-staff today, we remember those we have lost. In the years since President John F. Kennedy designated May 15th Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls National Police Week, tens of thousands of people from departments throughout the United States and agencies around the world have come to Washington, DC., to mark this day.

As they say, there is no such thing as an off-duty police officer. Our men and women in law enforcement work tirelessly to protect our communities. While it is often in emergencies that we remark at their courage and perseverance, we know that they remain vigilant every day. Especially this year, as our community recovers from the cowardly and despicable terrorist attack in Boston last month, we acknowledge the hazards that our police officers face and the sacrifices that they make in the service of their communities. We remember Sean Collier and pay respect to his family, to his friends, and to his brothers and sisters in the police force.

The members of our law enforcement community have earned our respect, gratitude, and support. In Massachusetts, we honor Andrew J. Tufts, Frederick G. Mercer, John W. Powers, James A. Callahan Sr., Ryan Tvelia, Kevin E. Ambrose, Jose Torres, John P. Gibbons III, and Peter James Kneeland. They are among 321 law enforcement heroes who died in the line of duty, whose names have been engraved this spring on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, DC.

As we take this moment to thank our police officers for all that they do every day, we are also reminded that we must continue to work in Congress to make sure that our agencies have the resources they need in their important work protecting our communities.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, a warm thank-you to the Reverend Miniard Culpepper. His words of faith and community are greatly appreciated here today.

For a long time now, Reverend Culpepper has been praying over me. Last winter, before I was sworn into office, Reverend Culpepper held a special Sunday prayer service for me in his church, Pleasant Hill Baptist, in Dorchester. That December evening the pews were packed with local preachers and churchgoers representing a dozen or so churches in the area.

At the conclusion of the service, the ministers circled around me, wrapped their arms together and prayed to God to give me the strength to work for the poor and powerless among us.

I feel blessed to have received their prayers, and I have tried my best to keep them in my heart in my work here. But I am just one of many who appreciates the hard work Reverend Culpepper and Pleasant Hill Baptist have put into strengthening and protecting their community.

You see, Reverend Culpepper and his congregation understand that their community extends well beyond the walls of their church. When Jahmol Norfleet, a former gang leader from Roxbury, left prison and showed a desire to turn his life around as a peacemaker between rival gangs, it was Reverend Culpepper who reached out to him. Pleasant Hill Baptist welcomed him into their family. After Jahmol was tragically shot to death outside of his grandmother's home, Reverend Culpepper worked hard to implement antiviolence program methods that were based on his conversations with Jahmol.

When in January of this year 13-year-old Gabriel Clarke suffered grievous gunshot wounds just blocks from Pleasant Hill Baptist Church, Reverend Culpepper and his congregation resolved to start their annual neighborhood patrols just a little earlier. After all, as Reverend Culpepper remarked, this is not somebody's problem down the street or on the other side of town, this is my problem.

Pleasant Hill Baptist Church was founded more than 70 years ago by Reverend Culpepper's grandfather, Rev. Samuel H. Bullock. Reverend Bullock was deeply involved in his community working to educate children and to reduce juvenile delinquency. Reverend Culpepper and the congregation at Pleasant Hill Baptist Church have carried on that legacy of community involvement with spirit and determination.

We thank Reverend Culpepper for his blessing. We thank him for gracing us with the same spirit that drives him and the Pleasant Hill Baptist Church family back home. We thank him and his church for reminding us that the problems that affect our neighborhoods, our cities, our Commonwealth, and our country aren't someone else's problems, they are all of our problems.

I am honored to have Reverend Culpepper here today.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. Warren pertaining to the introduction of S. 897 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, on July 1, the interest rate on new federally subsidized student loans is set to double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. That means unless Congress acts, for millions of young people the cost of borrowing money to go to college will double.

The student debt problem in this country is a quiet but growing crisis. Today's graduates collectively carry more than $1 trillion in debt--more than all the outstanding credit card debt in the whole country. Doubling the interest rate on new student loans will just increase the pressure on our young people.

Keep in mind: these young people didn't go to the mall and run up charges on a credit card. They worked hard, they stayed in class, they learned new skills, and they borrowed what they needed to pay for their education. Their education will improve their opportunities in life, but their education will not just help these students. When they acquire more skills, these students help us build a strong and competitive economy and they strengthen our middle class.

Student interest rates are set to double in less than 2 months, but so far this Congress has done nothing--nothing--to address this problem. Some people say that we can't afford to help our kids through school by keeping student loan interest rates low. But right now, as I speak, the Federal Government offers far lower interest rates on loans, every single day--they just don't do it for everyone.

Right now, a big bank can get a loan through the Federal Reserve discount window at a rate of about 0.75 percent. But this summer a student who is trying to get a loan to go to college will pay almost 7 percent. In other words, the Federal Government is going to charge interest rates that are nine times higher than the rates for the biggest banks--the same banks that destroyed millions of jobs and nearly broke the economy. That isn't right. And that is why I am introducing legislation today to give students the same deal that we give to the big banks.

The Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act would allow students eligible for federally subsidized Stafford loans to borrow at the same rate the big banks get through the Federal Reserve discount window. For 1 year the Federal Reserve would make funds available to the Department of Education to make loans to students at the same low rates offered to the big banks. This will give students relief from high interest rates while giving Congress a chance to find a long-term solution.

Some may say we can't afford this proposal. I would remind them the Federal Government currently makes 36 cents in profit for every $1 it lends to students. Add up those profits and you'll find next year student loans will bring in $34 billion. Meanwhile, the banks pay interest that is one-ninth of the amount students will be asked to pay. That is just wrong. It doesn't reflect our values. We shouldn't be profiting from our students who are drowning in debt while we are giving a great deal to the big banks. We should be investing in our young people so they can get good jobs and grow the economy, so let's give them the same great deal the banks get.

Some explain that we give banks exceptionally low interest rates because the economy is still shaky and banks need access to cheap credit to continue the recovery. But our students are just as important as banks to a strong recovery, and the debt they carry poses a serious risk to that recovery. In fact, in March of this year, the Federal Reserve said because of the economic impact on family budgets, high levels of student debt pose a risk to our shaky economic recovery.

If the Federal Reserve can float trillions of dollars to large financial institutions at low interest rates to grow the economy, surely they can float the Department of Education the money to fund our students, keep us competitive, and grow our middle class.

Let's face it, banks get a great deal when they borrow money from the Fed. In effect, the American taxpayer is investing in those banks. We should make the same kind of investment in our young people who are trying to get an education. Lend them the money and make them pay it back, but give our kids a break on the interest they pay. Let's bank on students.

The Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act is my first stand-alone bill in the Senate. I am introducing this bill because our students are facing a crisis. We cannot stand by and simply watch. This is about our students, our economy, and our values. The Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act is a first step toward helping young people who are drowning in debt. Unlike the big banks, students don't have armies of lobbyists and lawyers. They have only their voices. And they call on us to do what is right.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, on July 1, the interest rate on new federally subsidized student loans is set to double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. That means unless Congress acts, for millions of young people the cost of borrowing money to go to college will double.

The student debt problem in this country is a quiet but growing crisis. Today's graduates collectively carry more than $1 trillion in debt--more than all the outstanding credit card debt in the whole country. Doubling the interest rate on new student loans will just increase the pressure on our young people.

Keep in mind: these young people didn't go to the mall and run up charges on a credit card. They worked hard, they stayed in class, they learned new skills, and they borrowed what they needed to pay for their education. Their education will improve their opportunities in life, but their education will not just help these students. When they acquire more skills, these students help us build a strong and competitive economy and they strengthen our middle class.

Student interest rates are set to double in less than 2 months, but so far this Congress has done nothing--nothing--to address this problem. Some people say that we can't afford to help our kids through school by keeping student loan interest rates low. But right now, as I speak, the Federal Government offers far lower interest rates on loans, every single day--they just don't do it for everyone.

Right now, a big bank can get a loan through the Federal Reserve discount window at a rate of about 0.75 percent. But this summer a student who is trying to get a loan to go to college will pay almost 7 percent. In other words, the Federal Government is going to charge interest rates that are nine times higher than the rates for the biggest banks--the same banks that destroyed millions of jobs and nearly broke the economy. That isn't right. And that is why I am introducing legislation today to give students the same deal that we give to the big banks.

The Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act would allow students eligible for federally subsidized Stafford loans to borrow at the same rate the big banks get through the Federal Reserve discount window. For 1 year the Federal Reserve would make funds available to the Department of Education to make loans to students at the same low rates offered to the big banks. This will give students relief from high interest rates while giving Congress a chance to find a long-term solution.

Some may say we can't afford this proposal. I would remind them the Federal Government currently makes 36 cents in profit for every $1 it lends to students. Add up those profits and you'll find next year student loans will bring in $34 billion. Meanwhile, the banks pay interest that is one-ninth of the amount students will be asked to pay. That is just wrong. It doesn't reflect our values. We shouldn't be profiting from our students who are drowning in debt while we are giving a great deal to the big banks. We should be investing in our young people so they can get good jobs and grow the economy, so let's give them the same great deal the banks get.

Some explain that we give banks exceptionally low interest rates because the economy is still shaky and banks need access to cheap credit to continue the recovery. But our students are just as important as banks to a strong recovery, and the debt they carry poses a serious risk to that recovery. In fact, in March of this year, the Federal Reserve said because of the economic impact on family budgets, high levels of student debt pose a risk to our shaky economic recovery.

If the Federal Reserve can float trillions of dollars to large financial institutions at low interest rates to grow the economy, surely they can float the Department of Education the money to fund our students, keep us competitive, and grow our middle class.

Let's face it, banks get a great deal when they borrow money from the Fed. In effect, the American taxpayer is investing in those banks. We should make the same kind of investment in our young people who are trying to get an education. Lend them the money and make them pay it back, but give our kids a break on the interest they pay. Let's bank on students.

The Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act is my first stand-alone bill in the Senate. I am introducing this bill because our students are facing a crisis. We cannot stand by and simply watch. This is about our students, our economy, and our values. The Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act is a first step toward helping young people who are drowning in debt. Unlike the big banks, students don't have armies of lobbyists and lawyers. They have only their voices. And they call on us to do what is right.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, thank you.

Every April a large blue-and-gold banner flies above the entryway at Old South Church, with words from Isaiah: ``May you run and not grow weary, walk and not faint.'' Old South Church sits on the finish line for the Boston Marathon, a distinguished and historical spot that has earned its name, ``Church of the Finish Line.''

Today I welcome Rev. John Edgerton of Old South Church, the Church of the Finish Line, and thank him for coming here to share his faith, resilience, and fortitude.

Less than 2 weeks ago, on the Sunday before the marathon, Old South Church welcomed athletes, friends, families, supporters, and marathon volunteers into the church for the annual premarathon ``Blessing of the Athletes.''

On Marathon Monday, just after 12 p.m., the bells of Old South Church rang in the men's winner of the Boston Marathon, Lelisa Desisa Benti, as he crossed the finish line.

Later that day two blasts from hidden bombs rocked the crowded final stretch on the Boston Marathon. One explosion occurred mere feet from the front of the church. In an instant, Old South Church, the marathon church, the Church of the Finish Line, joined the rest of Boston in helping, comforting, and praying.

The Old South Church was first gathered in 1669 by a group of colonists who wanted to create a more inclusive and welcoming congregation. Since then, it has played an integral role in Boston's history. Meetings that led to the Boston Tea Party were held at the church, and in the 19th century church members were active in the abolitionist movement.

Although Old South Church was closed for more than a week following the explosion, its ministry remained

open. This past Sunday I attended an interfaith service, jointly performed by Old South Church and other local religious institutions, at the corner of Boylston and Berkeley Streets, a few blocks from the site of the bombing. I stood with hundreds of worshipers from a variety of faiths in downtown Boston, praying, signing, remembering. This perseverance and dedication to faith and community is why Boston has not grown weary; it is why Boston has not fainted; it is why Boston is strong.

Reverend Edgerton, thank you for the blessing you brought to the Senate today. I join you in praying for our hometown and for our Nation as we face the challenges ahead. The qualities you and your church exemplify, the spirit of openness and inclusiveness, the power of healing and prayer, and the strength of community are what will bring Boston through these difficult times. I am honored that you joined us today.

I yield the floor.