Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act to extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve private institutions of higher education and rail carriers. This legislation would make these individuals eligible for the same benefits provided to public law enforcement officers, including line- of-duty death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program and bulletproof vest partnership grants through the Department of Justice.

The Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Act of 1976 was enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and firefighters by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty.

The same risks also apply to officers protecting our private universities and railways. However, the PSOB Act does not include these officers, even though they enforce the law. These brave individuals, who protect our college and university campuses and railways every day and receive similar training to their government counterparts, are thus excluded from receiving the line-of-duty federal death benefits available to law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments.

Over the last 50 years, 35 college or university law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. The names of these officers, including Patrol Officer Joseph Francis Doyle who was killed in the line of duty at Brown University in 1988, as well as the railway officers who have been killed in the line of duty are inscribed on the memorial.

A recent name on the memorial is Patrol Officer Sean Collier. We recently marked the first anniversary of the bombing at the Boston Marathon, an act of terror that tragically killed three and injured over 260 others. Three days later, during the manhunt for the attackers, the perpetrators shot and killed Officer Collier of the MIT Police Department on the university's campus. Officer Collier was not only bravely serving the students and faculty of MIT last April. He was also serving the city of Boston, working with others in the law enforcement community to keep the city and our Nation safe during an exceptionally tense and difficult time. However, since he was employed by a private university, Officer Collier was not eligible for line-of- duty death benefits. To honor Officer Collier's service and sacrifice, this bill would be retroactive to April 15, 2013, the day of the Boston bombings.

I am pleased that Senators Ayotte, Leahy, Markey, and Whitehouse have joined me in introducing this legislation, which would ensure that officers who give their full measure and their families are eligible for the benefits associated with law enforcement work, and that they have access to the protective equipment they need.

The bill would only apply to officers who are sworn, licensed or certified to enforce the law within their jurisdiction, and is supported by the National Association of Police Organizations and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.

I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act to extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve private institutions of higher education and rail carriers. This legislation would make these individuals eligible for the same benefits provided to public law enforcement officers, including line- of-duty death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program and bulletproof vest partnership grants through the Department of Justice.

The Public Safety Officers Benefits, PSOB, Act of 1976 was enacted to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and firefighters by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty.

The same risks also apply to officers protecting our private universities and railways. However, the PSOB Act does not include these officers, even though they enforce the law. These brave individuals, who protect our college and university campuses and railways every day and receive similar training to their government counterparts, are thus excluded from receiving the line-of-duty federal death benefits available to law enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments.

Over the last 50 years, 35 college or university law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. The names of these officers, including Patrol Officer Joseph Francis Doyle who was killed in the line of duty at Brown University in 1988, as well as the railway officers who have been killed in the line of duty are inscribed on the memorial.

A recent name on the memorial is Patrol Officer Sean Collier. We recently marked the first anniversary of the bombing at the Boston Marathon, an act of terror that tragically killed three and injured over 260 others. Three days later, during the manhunt for the attackers, the perpetrators shot and killed Officer Collier of the MIT Police Department on the university's campus. Officer Collier was not only bravely serving the students and faculty of MIT last April. He was also serving the city of Boston, working with others in the law enforcement community to keep the city and our Nation safe during an exceptionally tense and difficult time. However, since he was employed by a private university, Officer Collier was not eligible for line-of- duty death benefits. To honor Officer Collier's service and sacrifice, this bill would be retroactive to April 15, 2013, the day of the Boston bombings.

I am pleased that Senators Ayotte, Leahy, Markey, and Whitehouse have joined me in introducing this legislation, which would ensure that officers who give their full measure and their families are eligible for the benefits associated with law enforcement work, and that they have access to the protective equipment they need.

The bill would only apply to officers who are sworn, licensed or certified to enforce the law within their jurisdiction, and is supported by the National Association of Police Organizations and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.

I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act along with Senators Kirk, Murray, and Isakson, and also the Improving Trauma Care Act, which includes burn injuries in the definition of trauma.

These two bills, S. 2405 and S. 2406, build on my previous efforts to improve trauma care, which is an essential component of our care system. Timely and effective trauma care is critical to ensuring lifesaving interventions for those who have serious unintentional injuries. Such injuries are the leading cause of death for children and adults under 44, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle toward expeditious passage of these bills.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Trauma Systems and Regionalization of Emergency Care Reauthorization Act along with Senators Kirk, Murray, and Isakson, and also the Improving Trauma Care Act, which includes burn injuries in the definition of trauma.

These two bills, S. 2405 and S. 2406, build on my previous efforts to improve trauma care, which is an essential component of our care system. Timely and effective trauma care is critical to ensuring lifesaving interventions for those who have serious unintentional injuries. Such injuries are the leading cause of death for children and adults under 44, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle toward expeditious passage of these bills.

I rise to discuss again the urgent need to restore emergency unemployment insurance.

Like many Americans, I am hopeful about our future but concerned about how the great recession has impacted our fellow Americans, particularly those who have been hit the hardest--the long-term unemployed. These are good people from all walks of life, from all 50 States. They are people who work in a variety of fields, from high tech to manufacturing, from cubicles and offices to plants and factory floors.

Many of them are older and find themselves out of work for the first time in decades. All of them, all 2.78 million of them, lost out on December 28 of last year. While they have been looking for jobs, Congress has failed to do its job and restore unemployment insurance.

Previously, Congress had never let emergency benefits expire when the long-term unemployment rate was so high. Today's long-term unemployment rate is 2.2 percent, and it is still well over the highest rate, 1.3 percent, of previous expirations.

In the past, when the rate was this high for long-term unemployment, we maintained these benefits. This is still an emergency, and we have to maintain these benefits. It still requires our attention and swift bipartisan action.

To the Senate's credit, there has been bipartisan action. Thanks to my Republican colleague from Nevada, Senator Dean Heller, and a coalition of 10 Senators--5 Democrats and 5 Republicans--the Senate passed a 5-month extension of these vital benefits that would provide aid to job seekers who have been searching for work for more than 26 weeks. Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize this is the right thing to do for workers and the smart thing to do for our economy.

So the Senate responded and found a path forward, and it was a difficult path. Majority leader Harry Reid dedicated a vast amount of floor time. Our bipartisan coalition reached a true compromise and stuck together on vote after vote. On April 7, 43 days ago, the full Senate approved the measure.

Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans in charge have refused to take up our bipartisan legislation or pass their own extension of these emergency efforts. Because of their obstruction, millions of Americans are hurting.

We need to get our country back to full unemployment. That is the fundamental answer--to place people in jobs.

We have to move the country to a place where all Americans have an opportunity to earn a living and build a better life for their families.

Some may be tempted to look at the latest unemployment numbers and say: Well, see, ending job benefits is working because the numbers seem to be falling.

That notion is simply not supported by the facts. This long-term unemployment problem is still, as I mentioned, of significant proportions, and those are precisely the people who benefit from extended unemployment benefits.

A recent study by the Illinois Department of Employment Security found that four of five Illinois workers who lost long-term unemployment benefits at the end of last year were still without work 2 months later. They are still struggling in a very difficult market.

I would agree with the director of this State agency who says: ``Economic conditions should determine when this safety-net program ends, not an arbitrary date on the calendar. ``

The economic conditions for the long-term unemployed are still perilous, and it is still an emergency. The Speaker's refusal to renew emergency unemployment insurance makes it even harder for struggling Americans to feed their families, and it does nothing to improve our economic outlook.

The Senate-passed bill was fully offset and included, in fact, deficit reduction. So the idea that it was too expensive doesn't hold water.

The fact that House Republicans are now moving $300 billion worth of budget-busting tax breaks, many of which flow to corporations, but refuse to renew emergency benefits for job seekers strikes many people, including myself, as not just an unfair double standard but as out of step with what we need to do to get this economy moving forward.

Let me again remind everyone, we had a fully paid-for unemployment extension bill on a bipartisan basis that actually resulted in some deficit reduction and the House has refused to take it up. But in the meantime, they are moving $300 billion worth of tax cuts and tax breaks over several years, which flow to corporations, and all of it unpaid for.

So for the sake of job seekers in our economy, I hope House Republicans will stop obstructing emergency aid to job seekers. They need to take up the bipartisan Senate agreement to restore these benefits and work with us on strengthening our economic recovery. Just give the bill an up-or-down vote and give millions of American job seekers the chance to get back on their feet. In fact, I am confident if there were an up-or-down vote it would pass the House. It is fiscally responsible, fully paid for, it provides assistance to people and families who desperately need it, and would help the economic climate in every State in this country.

They can attach measures to the bill if they want. That is their prerogative. But let us go ahead and get a bill passed, and if we need to resolve the bill between the House and Senate, let us do so. Refusing a vote is irresponsible. The American people deserve better, and I hope they will see better in the coming days ahead.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives the papers with respect to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, by Thursday, May 22, at a time to be determined by the majority leader with the concurrence of the Republican leader, but no later than Thursday, May 22, the Chair lay before the body the conference report to accompany H.R. 3080, and the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report; that the vote on adoption be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; further, that no motions or points of order be in order to the conference report.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time for debate be yielded back.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.

While there is much more to be done on energy issues, we have an opportunity with this bill to make strides in increasing energy efficiency across many sectors of our economy--from schools and homes to commercial buildings, industry, and manufacturing.

I commend my colleagues, Senators Shaheen and Portman, for their tireless efforts to craft a bipartisan energy efficiency bill that has the support of a diverse range of businesses and environmental and labor groups. This demonstrates the broad consensus that being smarter about how we use energy will help strengthen our economy, create jobs, improve our energy security, and protect our environment. Investing in a cleaner, more efficient energy system is one of the fastest, most cost-effective ways to increase our global competitiveness, support job growth, and save families and businesses money through improved efficiency and reduced energy consumption.

I have been particularly focused on addressing the burden of high energy costs on families and businesses in my home State of Rhode Island. One of the most pressing, far-reaching, and complex challenges we face in Rhode Island is the high cost of energy to power and heat homes and businesses. Rhode Island and the New England region face significant energy transmission and distribution challenges, which results

in consumers and businesses in the region experiencing some of the highest, most volatile energy costs in the country. These high energy costs are hurting Rhode Island families and businesses, threatening the growth of our economy, and reducing our competitiveness.

After paying their monthly home energy bills, Rhode Island families, who have been hit particularly hard during this period of high unemployment, are left with few resources to meet other basic needs. High energy costs also place Rhode Island businesses, manufactures, and industrial users at a competitive disadvantage. To revitalize Rhode Island's rich manufacturing history, we must find ways to lower energy costs.

These were among the issues explored when I welcomed Secretary Moniz to Providence last month as part of the Administration's outreach on the Quadrennial Energy Review. Secretary Moniz had the opportunity to hear directly from Rhode Islanders impacted by high energy costs and engage in a dialogue of potential solutions.

While I continue working with my New England colleagues to find long- term solutions to ensure an affordable, cleaner, and more reliable energy system for the region, one of the things we can do to help families and businesses in our States right now is to pass the Shaheen- Portman energy efficiency bill.

Addressing the existing energy infrastructure constraints in New England is just one piece of the puzzle. Energy efficiency will also be an important tool in reducing demand, lowering energy costs, and addressing and maintaining the reliability of our energy system.

Improved efficiency not only saves families and businesses directly on their energy bills, but by also reducing demand, it helps to alleviate stress on the power system and can help mitigate volatile price spikes in the New England region, as we witnessed over the last several months.

I would also like to take a moment to speak about an amendment I have joined Senators Coons and Collins in filing to this bill to reauthorize the Weatherization Assistance Program. I, along with Senator Collins, yearly lead the fight in the Senate for funding for the Weatherization and State Energy Programs. This amendment would reauthorize and enhance these two well-established, cost-effective energy programs that support jobs, contribute to the Nation's economic recovery, and help meet important goals, such as improving energy efficiency and lowering energy costs.

I know that we have many supporters of the Weatherization and State Energy Programs here in the Senate, and I look forward to continuing to work with each of you to ensure that these important programs remain successful in improving energy efficiency, creating jobs, and reducing the overall cost of heating and powering our homes and businesses.

While we should certainly do much more to advance our national energy policy--and I hope that we can take greater steps very soon--I urge my colleagues to join me now in supporting the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill.

I once again commend those two Senators for their extraordinarily thoughtful, conscientious, and determined leadership. Now we must follow their example and pass this legislation.

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Guard Technician Equity Act to address inconsistencies in the dual-status technician program.

Over 48,000 National Guard dual-status technicians serve our nation. They are a distinct group of workers--as civilians, they work for the reserve components, performing administrative duties, providing training, and maintaining and repairing equipment. However, as a condition of their civilian position, they are also required to maintain military status--attending weekend drills and annual training, deploying overseas, and responding to domestic disasters and emergencies--thereby creating their ``dual-status.''

As a result, dual-status technicians are caught between the provisions that govern the Federal civilian workforce and the military in numerous ways. First, under existing law, a dual-status technician who is no longer fit for military duty must be fired from their technician position, even if they are still fully capable of performing their civilian duties. This bill would give technicians the option of remaining in their civilian position if they have 20 years of service as a dual-status technician, so that the experience and skills of these dedicated employees will not be lost.

Second, dual-status technicians do not have the same appeal rights as most other Federal employees, including those civilians in other Department of Defense positions. Federal employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement have the right to file a grievance and proceed to arbitration, or file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB. Currently, dual-status technicians may appeal to the Adjutant General in their state, but not to any neutral third party. This bill would allow them to also appeal to the MSPB for grievances unrelated to their military service.

Third, most reserve component members are able to obtain health care coverage through the TRICARE Reserve Select program. However, dual- status technicians are ineligible, despite their mandatory military status and reserve service, because they can participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. FEHBP plans can be more expensive than TRICARE Reserve Select, thereby adding costs and limiting health care options for these Guard technicians. My legislation simply calls for the Government Accountability Office to study the feasibility of converting the coverage for National Guard dual-status technicians from FEHBP to TRICARE Reserve Select.

The National Guard Technician Equity Act also allows technicians to receive overtime pay and requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the adequacy of leave time provided to Federal employees who are members of the National Guard for required military training.

I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the National Guard Technician Equity Act, and join me in pressing for inclusion of provisions of this bill in the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, today I introduce the National Guard Technician Equity Act to address inconsistencies in the dual-status technician program.

Over 48,000 National Guard dual-status technicians serve our nation. They are a distinct group of workers--as civilians, they work for the reserve components, performing administrative duties, providing training, and maintaining and repairing equipment. However, as a condition of their civilian position, they are also required to maintain military status--attending weekend drills and annual training, deploying overseas, and responding to domestic disasters and emergencies--thereby creating their ``dual-status.''

As a result, dual-status technicians are caught between the provisions that govern the Federal civilian workforce and the military in numerous ways. First, under existing law, a dual-status technician who is no longer fit for military duty must be fired from their technician position, even if they are still fully capable of performing their civilian duties. This bill would give technicians the option of remaining in their civilian position if they have 20 years of service as a dual-status technician, so that the experience and skills of these dedicated employees will not be lost.

Second, dual-status technicians do not have the same appeal rights as most other Federal employees, including those civilians in other Department of Defense positions. Federal employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement have the right to file a grievance and proceed to arbitration, or file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB. Currently, dual-status technicians may appeal to the Adjutant General in their state, but not to any neutral third party. This bill would allow them to also appeal to the MSPB for grievances unrelated to their military service.

Third, most reserve component members are able to obtain health care coverage through the TRICARE Reserve Select program. However, dual- status technicians are ineligible, despite their mandatory military status and reserve service, because they can participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, FEHBP. FEHBP plans can be more expensive than TRICARE Reserve Select, thereby adding costs and limiting health care options for these Guard technicians. My legislation simply calls for the Government Accountability Office to study the feasibility of converting the coverage for National Guard dual-status technicians from FEHBP to TRICARE Reserve Select.

The National Guard Technician Equity Act also allows technicians to receive overtime pay and requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the adequacy of leave time provided to Federal employees who are members of the National Guard for required military training.

I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor the National Guard Technician Equity Act, and join me in pressing for inclusion of provisions of this bill in the National Defense Authorization Act.

I thank my colleagues Senator Franken and Senator Brown for their leadership and very wise comments on this issue, which is one of the most difficult ones that young Americans face, and that is paying for college and student loans.

As my colleague had indicated, this is just really the tip of the iceberg because these debts that they have accumulated will prevent them from buying homes, from starting families, and ultimately affects our economy in a tremendously disruptive way.

All of this is coming into very sharp focus as we begin the graduation season. We have high school seniors who are choosing a college to attend. We have college graduates who are leaving campus and facing a very difficult job market. Those who are going to college are looking at huge potential debt. Those who are leaving college already have, in most cases, those debts and are now thinking about how they can deal with them as they go forward.

Outstanding student loan debt today is at an estimated $1.2 trillion, and it is growing.

According to the Institute for College Access and Success, between 2008 and 2012, average student loan debt increased by an average of 6 percent per year--much, much faster than the rate of inflation. So we have an issue that is not only critical today, but it is getting worse each and every day.

Seventy percent of the class of 2012 graduated with student loans, and the average student debt was $29,400. That is a lot of money. With that debt and with a job that is paying modest wages, or in many cases not being able to find such a job, it is very difficult to pay those loans.

I just met with the presidents of all my colleges and universities in Rhode Island, and we talked about the urgency of this issue. Rhode Island ranked fifth in the Nation for average debt, with students owing an average of more than $31,000 when they graduate from college. We are fifth in the Nation.

We are also, I would like to point out, regretfully, first in the Nation in unemployment. We have the classic situation of Rhode Island graduates leaving with an average of $31,000 of debt and struggling in one of the toughest job markets in the United States to find work. That is a very difficult combination to bear; that is so for so many young people not only in Rhode Island but in Ohio, Massachusetts, and people across this country.

This debt is a huge drag on our economy. It is a threat to our future.

We have to take action. We just can't sit back and watch this get worse each day as it is.

First, we must commit to lowering costs for low- and middle-income families. The Pell grant is the foundation for making college affordable.

It is the work of my distinguished predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, who understood that if you could make college affordable for talented Americans, they could remake this country and the world. For decades we did that. We provided the kinds of resources and grants that allowed talented, but not wealthy, students to go to school, to leave school without huge debts, and to begin immediately to apply their talents to the issues that confronted this country and this world.

In fact, I would argue that his foresight back in the 1960s and 70s set the stage for all of these great sorts of revolutions.

Why did we have a telecommunications revolution? Because we had not only the educated scientists and engineers to develop transistors, to develop all of these new technologies, but we also had the most educated population in the world to use them.

That wasn't an accident. That was building on the GI bill in the 1940s, with the Higher Education Act in the 1960s, adding the Pell grant in the 1970s, to make college affordable and accessible to the widest section of Americans.

That has been the engine that has driven our growth and our economic progress over many decades. That engine is sputtering right now because of the debt that is being put on these students because the cost of college is going up.

We certainly have to reject the proposal in the House by some of our Republican colleagues that would roll back investment in the Pell grant. We have to do more to make the Pell grant accessible to more citizens, more Americans.

Second, we have to tackle this student loan debt crisis.

The Federal Government should not be generating revenue from student loan interest payments. Instead, we should be offering lower rates. That is why I introduced the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act to set interest rates to cover our costs and nothing more, and allow for refinancing of loans that are at high fixed rates.

I was pleased to work with Senator Warren of Massachusetts, who is an extraordinary leader on this issue, to develop a new student loan refinancing bill that would enable student loan borrowers to refinance at the rate that was enacted under the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act last year.

We also have to hold loan servicers accountable for treating borrowers fairly. Students must get accurate and clear information about their repayment options, and that is why Senator Durbin's Borrowers' Bill of Rights Act is so critically important. I am proud that he has joined us on the floor, and I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

Third, States, colleges, and universities have to step up. They have to do more to provide the resources, to provide the efficiencies, so that we can make college more affordable for all of our citizens.

I have introduced the Partnerships for Affordability and Student Success Act to reinvigorate the Federal-State partnership for higher education with an emphasis on need-based grant aid.

One of the problems we have, frankly, is that in the 1970s, if you looked at the Pell grant, it would cover roughly three quarters of tuition at a public four-year university. Now it covers only about one- third of tuition for those who can get the grant.

If we could go back to those times where you could basically get--if you were a low-income deserving student--a grant, we wouldn't have such a crisis in student debt. So we have to make grant aid more accessible, and that requires a State, Federal, university, and college partnership. A recent report presented at the American Educational Research Association found that grant aid increased the likelihood of graduation for low-income students while unsubsidized student loans resulted in a decrease in graduation rates.

If we are worried about graduating young people from college, the one

thing we can do is take the worry of debt off their shoulders, take the uncertainty of trying to put together, cobble together, financing for education by giving them the grants that used to be something we thought were part and parcel of the American dream.

We also know that one of the main reasons tuition has skyrocketed is that State appropriations for higher education have declined. According to the State Higher Education Finance report, State spending per full- time equivalent students reached its lowest point in 25 years in 2011.

States do have to put more into their State and university college systems. I say that knowing full well the challenges the States face, some of which are the result of policies and guidance that we have given them. But if the States are not willing to put more resources in, it ultimately is shifted on to the shoulders of students, and ultimately there is only so much weight they can bear.

States have to reinvest in higher education, and we can help give them incentives to do that, rather than disincentives. I hope our legislation will do that.

Finally, colleges and universities must take greater responsibility for affordability and student loan debt. This is not something that is beyond their prerogatives. They are not helpless in this. They have to not only advise students on the best course of action--in fact, in my view, colleges, public, private, for profit, nonprofit, should be fiduciaries, really. They should operate in the best interests of students, not the best interest of the bottom line, not to make up for lost State contributions, not to sign up for esoteric deals with financial companies because they get a huge payment back in return.

Just as in the classroom, they should be trying to give these students the best education. In the financial aid office they should be giving them the best deal possible on paying for college.

To ensure that, to basically make sure that all of these institutions have some, as they say, skin in the game, I introduced the Protect Student Borrowers Act with Senators Durbin and Warren. I must say this is also the result of some hard lessons we learned in the financial crisis. If institutions don't have an interest in the loans they are making--in fact, if they are encouraging people to take loans they cannot afford--disaster is just days, months, weeks away. It is coming. We want them to be more responsible. So we would ask them, as the percentage of their students who default rises, that these institutions start sharing some of the risk; that they start being conscious of the arrangements they are giving, the tuition they are charging, the courses they are offering; that they have a vested interest in their students succeeding, and not the institution getting as much money as possible.

I know there are other colleagues on the floor, and I have more to say about this, but we have a great deal of work to do here. This is about a fair shot for all of our students and all of our families. Working with Senator Warren and Senator Durbin and my other colleagues, we are going to try to make a difference for students across this land.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

The Republican-led filibuster of the minimum wage bill-- which would raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.75 per hour to $10.10 per hour--means that an estimated 27.8 million Americans, including 91,000 Rhode Islanders, will not get a raise. It also means, according to estimates from the Economic Policy Institute, that our economy will miss out on a GDP boost of $22 billion by 2016, which would have supported over 84,000 additional full-time jobs.

Those 27.8 million workers who would have received a raise would have spent it at local businesses, helping their local communities and spurring economic growth. Typically, minimum wage workers are those who, when they receive an increase in their paychecks, go out and buy things that are necessary. They are the ones who really provide the kind of local stimulus we need to grow the economy.

The Federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009. Today an individual who works 40 hours per week 52 weeks a year at the Federal minimum wage earns $15,080 per year, and that is nearly $5,000 below the Federal poverty level for a family of three and almost $9,000 below the poverty level for a family of four. That means we have hard-working Americans putting in full-time work every week for the entire year and yet still living in poverty. That is not fair to these families who are just looking for a fair shot.

People who work hard for a living shouldn't have to live in poverty. That was not the case in the sixties when the minimum wage was such that it would lift you out of poverty, and that is what we have to do today.

When Congress last passed legislation to raise the minimum wage in 2007, it was a bipartisan undertaking, and 44 Republican Senators joined Democrats to send President Bush a bill that raised the minimum wage to its current level. That bipartisan effort should be emulated today in this Senate. In fact, one could argue that the needs are more pressing; that American workers have fallen further behind; and that the same logic that compelled President Bush to sign this bill and a bipartisan Congress to send it to him is even more compelling today.

Our constituents sent us here to work together to grow the economy and create jobs. It is disappointing that this bill to provide millions of hard-working Americans a raise--a raise they deserve through their own efforts--has been filibustered.

I hope my colleagues on the other side would find a way to work with us on this issue and come together to strengthen our economic recovery. I was particularly gratified, working with my colleagues on emergency unemployment insurance, that we did get bipartisan support to pass sensible and fiscally responsible legislation. Unfortunately, now it is in the House and it is not moving there. I hope it does.

But we have to do more of that, focus on what will actually help Americans individually and collectively move and grow our economy. We have worked together on emergency unemployment insurance and other issues, such as immigration reform. We can work together on this issue, and we must.

Again, I am at this point very disappointed that same bipartisan effort has not been translated into action by the House of Representatives when it comes to restoring emergency unemployment insurance. Speaker Boehner could call up our bill, which is fully paid for and which will affect, at this point, about 2.6 million Americans-- and their families, so it is many more Americans who will benefit--and under the rules of the House could quickly have a vote within probably 24 hours. I am convinced and so is my colleague Senator Heller of Nevada, who is my chief cosponsor, that bill would pass in the House today on a bipartisan basis. We have had Republican Representatives who have written to the Speaker and said: Bring it up for a vote. That would help. It would help not only 2.6 million Americans--and that grows each day--but it would also help our economy.

So, again, in a similar vein, we need bipartisan action on raising the minimum wage in the Senate, emulating the bipartisan action we took with respect to emergency unemployment insurance, and then we need that same bipartisanship in the House of Representatives to move these measures to the President for his signature.

Raising the minimum wage and restoring jobless benefits are the right things to do for the American people and for the American economy. I hope these policies, which traditionally have enjoyed strong bipartisan support, will eventually prevail in both the Senate and the House and be signed into law by the President of the United States.

Once again, I think it is important to emphasize that the last time we raised the minimum wage, it was a bipartisan effort signed by a Republican President. This is not an issue or should not be an issue of political ideology or political posturing. This should be an issue of what helps the American worker make his or her way through a very difficult economy. Viewed in that logic, it is clear to me that we should pass this legislation, not filibuster it, and that the House should pass quickly the emergency unemployment insurance compensation bill.

I yield the floor, and 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 103 days since emergency unemployment insurance expired and 3 days since the Senate sent a bipartisan agreement to the House which would restore these benefits for up to 2.7 million Americans. These benefits are fully paid for and would lift the entire economy. That is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that failing to renew the benefits for a full year would cost the economy 200,000 jobs. We recognize our bill is a partial restoration, not a full year. The restoration we proposed will increase jobs in the economy as attested by the CBO.

Unfortunately, it appears that the House has no intent to take up the Senate-passed agreement to restore these benefits before they leave town for 2 weeks.

That is right if the House fails to pass what the Senate has passed on a bipartisan vote--and this was a bipartisan, fiscally responsible measure--the Speaker, who says he wants job creation, will be rejecting a portion of those 200,000 new jobs projected by the Congressional Budget Office, which is headed by his own appointee.

Contrary to the criticism that our proposal does not create jobs and doesn't do anything with jobs, it does. More importantly, it restores benefits to people who are desperately looking for work in a very difficult economy, and who need these benefits to keep searching for work as well as supporting their families.

In my view, the failure to act is not defensible. Restoring these benefits is the right thing to do for job seekers and the smart thing to do for our economy. The very modest $300-a-week average benefit, which our bill restores, helps workers stay afloat and cover the necessities as they search for a job. That modest benefit gets pumped back into the economy at the local supermarket or gas station. It is just commonsense. People will get this--I hope--benefit, and they will go right along and take care of the daily needs of life. They are not in a position to stash it away--most of them--and they are not in a position to do anything else but to try to stay afloat through very difficult financial circumstances.

Unemployment remains stubbornly high in my State, and across the United States. The March employment report, while positive, showed we still have much more to do to strengthen our economic recovery, especially for the 10.5 million Americans looking for work, including 3.7 million of the long-term unemployed. Again, this benefit we propose is particularly directed at these long-term unemployed Americans.

That is why this is a critical effort in our attempts to strengthen our economy--restoring these benefits. We have never let these benefits lapse when the long-term unemployment rate is higher than 1.3 percent-- and today it is nearly twice that at roughly 2.6 percent. We have acted on a bipartisan basis, on a fiscally responsible basis, on a basis that recognizes not only the needs of families but the need to help further grow our economy. Now it is time for the House to act that way-- responsibly fiscally and responsibly to our neighbors and our constituents, on a bipartisan basis, to get this bill done quickly and get it to the President.

It is my hope the House of Representatives stops blocking this. This is fully paid for. It is fiscally responsible. It is a bipartisan effort. It is what every one of our constituents says we should be doing more of--responsible, thoughtful, bipartisan legislation. We have done our part in the Senate and now it is up to the House. I hope they move quickly--this week indeed--to get this relief to millions of Americans.

With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.