Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Utah be recognized.

I wish to thank the Senator from Utah for graciously allowing me to proceed.

While the Republicans failed to join us in an effort to avert the doubling of the interest rate on need-based student loans, there is still time to act to make things right for students. On July 1, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Instead of allowing us to take up a vote on an extension of the lower rate, the other side continues to push a so-called long- term solution that would saddle students with even more debt in the future.

Students and advocates from across the country have been very clear. On June 21, they wrote to Senate leadership, and in their words: ``A bad deal that is permanent for student borrowers is worse than no deal at all.''

We need time to work together to develop a good deal for students-- one that is comprehensive, one that touches not on just rates but on incentives to lower the costs of a college education and on ways in which students can refinance their existing debt and their future debts. As we all understand, we have reached a point where student debt has exceeded credit card debt. It is the second largest household debt--$1 trillion--and it is saddling this generation and future generations with burdens they well might not be able to discharge.

In the meantime, at this moment, we should take up and pass the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act which I have offered, along with Senator Hagan and 41 of our colleagues, to ensure that students with the greatest financial need do not see the interest rate on their loans double. Again, at the heart of our student lending program has been a special concern to allow young men and women with talent from low and moderate incomes to go to college. That is why we created the subsidized Stafford loan program. That is what we have to keep our focus and emphasis on today. Forty-nine organizations representing students, educators, colleges and universities, and workers from across the country have asked us to do this. These are the students, the universities, and the people who have most at stake and they are telling us, again, that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all.

We should take a step back and remember why we offer student loans in the first place. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Higher Education Act into law in 1965, he said: ``And it is a truism education is no longer a luxury. Education in this day and age is a necessity.''

His words are truer today than they were in 1965. According to Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, we will fall 5 million

short of the workers with postsecondary credentials we will need by 2020. We already know there is going to be a gap between the workers we need with advanced degrees and the jobs available by 2020. Nearly two- thirds of new jobs will require a college degree or similar credential. So by saddling this generation with additional costs and thereby inhibiting those who may well have the talent but not the resources to go to college, we are going to create an even bigger divergence between the demand for skilled workers and the talent Americans need to develop to fill those jobs.

President Johnson again referred to the Higher Education Act as a promise the Nation was making to its young people for generations to come. The promise was that this Nation was not going to allow financial barriers to keep willing and able young people from a college education. But, today, that promise is at risk.

As I have indicated, the job market increasingly demands postsecondary education simply to achieve middle-class earnings. At the same time, college is getting more and more expensive. As I said also, student loan debt is accelerating, second only to mortgage debt for American households. This is going to have a huge impact on the overall economy of this country. It is not going to be just individual students and families struggling. The Federal Reserve of New York and others have reported that this debt is dragging down our economy especially for young families as they try to establish themselves.

The primary tools in the Higher Education Act to help students pay for college are grants, work study, and low-cost loans. The Pell grant, which I must say we are so proud of because it was authored and championed by our great Senator Claiborne Pell, is less and less able to fund a college education. In the 1970s, it covered a large part of tuition and fees for a year in college. Today, the percentage of costs it covers is shrinking, even as we try to expand it. As a result, more and more students have had to rely on loans, and that is why we have seen this huge explosion of debt.

Today, instead of aiding students with low-cost loans, the Federal Government, ironically, is reaping profits from these students. We have to change this.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that between now and 2023, student loans will generate $184 billion in revenue for the Federal Government. At a time when students are struggling and when they are seeing their debt explode, we are making money off of them--not investing in them but putting them under a huge financial burden.

As we seek to solve these complex problems, I think the most sensible and the wisest thing to do is to keep the subsidized loan rate at 3.4 percent and use the year to engage and successfully complete the complex task of looking at several different aspects of this problem.

However, we are blocked from doing so because our budget rules basically require us to replace the revenue and the other side has been unwilling to consider revenue from other sources. We propose to offset the cost by closing a tax loophole. We have to look carefully not only at what we will do to make the student loan programs cheaper and more effective for students but also how we will pay for it.

We also have to recognize that for many years our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have targeted some of these subsidized loans, wanting to make them more expensive. From the Contract With America in the 1990s to the Ryan budgets, they have suggested things such as, for example, eliminating the in-school interest subsidy on student loans. For subsidized student loans, we pay the interest while the student is in college pursuing their educational goals, and they have suggested eliminating that. These are some of the reasons why I think we have to be skeptical of proposals that are being advanced in order to provide relief for students.

The so-called Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act would add nearly $1 billion in additional revenues from student loans to the government coffers. It may be a short-term fix, but it creates a much larger long- term problem: The teaser rates in the first few years mask the uncapped rates students would face in the following decades.

This chart is very revealing. This demonstrates the undergraduate Stafford loan interest rates under the so-called Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act. This green line is the graduate Stafford loan, and this is the PLUS loan for parents. As we can see, they accelerate dramatically because of the 10-year Treasury bill rate chosen by supporters of the other proposal and because of the likely increase in that rate. It reaches the point here where interest rates exceed current law in 2016. So by 2016, these loans will be much more expensive. This is a classic case of enjoying 2 or 3 years of low interest, but having to be prepared to pay a lot more for education in the future. It is eerily reminiscent of those proposals to refinance one's house with an adjustable rate uncapped mortgage and get rid of that old-fashioned fixed rate which was so prevalent in the first decade of the 2000s and which caused so much havoc, and still is causing so much havoc.

CBO estimates that if we look from 2017 to 2023 alone, students will pay $37.8 billion more under the so-called Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act.

Students are smart. They can figure it out. But I think there is something else we have to add to the mix. This chart shows an estimate of the rates that was made a few weeks ago on the previous chart. Here is the change in the daily yield for the 10-year T-note. This is the benchmark rate. We can see where it begins on May 1 of 2013. It is going from about 1.6 percent all the way up to about 2.6 percent. This rate is rising dramatically. Why? Well, for one reason, the Federal Reserve has indicated they are going to begin to taper off their quantitative easing program. One reason is as we see signs of growth in the economy, interest rates will rise naturally. So what we could find is that this chart actually underestimates the potential growth in interest rates and students could end up paying maybe much more.

In the Republican proposal, there is no cap on these rates.

They talk about the fact that there is a consolidation process, but that consolidation process can only be entered into after a student has gone through school, begun repayment, accumulated interest at increasing rates each year, and then, indeed, when a student goes into the consolidation phase, all of the interest is capitalized and the loan is stretched out over many years, meaning they end up paying more. So it is not a rate cap at all. Frankly, without a rate cap, I think we are exposing students and their families to vast uncertainty. In fact, the only thing that seems to be certain is these rates are going up.

We have to approach this problem in a thoughtful way. That is why I introduced the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act with Senator Durbin. It is a long-term proposal. It would base student loan interest rates on the actual cost of running the student loan programs--not on arbitrary rate but the actual cost to the government--and it will protect students by capping interest rates on each of the individual loan programs. Our proposal would, in effect, pass on the savings to students that the Federal Government accrues from the low cost of borrowing relative to other borrowers, our ability to absorb risk relative to others, and the economies of scale for loan servicing for students across this country.

Additionally, by increasing in this legislation the loan limits on subsidized loans, we will allow students of low and moderate income to receive more help and not require them to borrow unsubsidized loans at higher interest rates and, as a result, I think, help bring down the whole cascading issue of student debt.

Finally, our legislation would provide relief to students with outstanding loans--that is upwards of $1 trillion nationally--by allowing them to refinance to a lower interest rate.

These are some of the key elements for a true long-term solution.

We also need to address the cost of college, which is going up astronomically. The institutions have to have a lot more at stake. They have to be very careful that they are not only selecting well-qualified students, but also that they are preparing them for the workforce of this century and that they can

have certainty, and the students can have certainty, that the skills they master in college will be rewarded with a job in our economy.

Finally, we have to establish a true Federal-State partnership. Federal grants and loans can't keep pace with these rising college costs. We have to work with every level of government to try to address these issues.

What I would suggest is that we work together. First, we extend the 3.4-percent interest rate, then, consciously, deliberately, and expeditiously, I hope, move forward to fix these complex issues, protect our students, allow education to be once again the engine that moves the country ahead, and allow every American, regardless of their wealth, to get aboard that train and go forward.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each and that Senator Hatch be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, July 1 is less than 1 week away. We need to reassure students who will be taking out loans for school this fall that their interest rates will not double.

It is safe to say most of us on both sides of the aisle would want to see a long-term approach to setting student loan interest rates rather than a temporary extension of the current rate. We have been working, Senator Harkin, Senator King, Senator Manchin, Senator Burr, Senator Coburn, Senator Warren, and many others about finding a way forward.

Unfortunately, all of the proposals that are on the table today would leave students worse off in the future, frankly, worse off than simply allowing the interest rate to double. There is a year or two, perhaps, where interest rates would stay below the rate of 6.8 percent. Then looking at rate trends, it looks quite convincing that these rates would surpass the current fixed rate and go higher.

We can not enact a long-term solution that is going to be bad for students. In fact, student groups and advocates have urged us to reject the so-called deals that are circling around with variable rates that are not capped that could lead to very high interest rates for students in a very short period of time.

One thing we have all been aware of for the last week or two is the dramatic movement of rates based on comments by the Federal Reserve with respect to their elimination of the quantitative easing program. The future looks as though we are going to see increased rates.

If we let them rise on students without any type of cap, I think we are going to, in a very short period of time, regret that we didn't take more time--be more thorough, and look at not just issues of rate structure but also incentives to keep costs down in college, and at refinancing options, because it is a staggering debt load already on students. We haven't done any of this.

As a result, today, I introduce, along with many of my colleagues, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. I wish to thank Senators Hagan, Franken, Warren, Harkin, Stabenow, Boxer, and many other colleagues.

This legislation will simply extend the current rate at 3.4 percent, the rate we have today for need-based loans. These are the subsidized loans that go to low- and moderate income students. It would extend them for 1 more year so we do have the time, and let's say we should and must take the time to thoughtfully develop a long-term approach to the student loan program. It is not just coincidental that we must reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress. We can use this time properly to ensure that we do, in fact, have a comprehensive solution that will make students better off, not just in the next several months but in the long run.

Instead of charging low and moderate income students more for their student loans, our legislation would extend the 3.4-percent interest rate by closing a loophole in the tax laws, which allows fairly wealthy individuals to defer taxes on their IRA or 401(K) type accounts. This provision would save taxpayers $4.6 billion over 10 years, which will more than cover the cost of extending the rate on subsidized student loans.

We are moving forward on a basis where we are not increasing the deficit. What we are doing is giving students another chance to maintain an appropriate loan level at 3.4 percent for an additional year. We have to take action to stop the interest rates from doubling.

Student loan debt is the next big financial crisis facing this country. We already understand from analysts that people in their twenties are putting off home purchases, automobile purchases, and are not doing what their parents' generation did because they have so much debt. They cannot move into the economy as their parents did. It is the second most outstanding household debt behind mortgage debt in the country. It surpassed credit card debt. It is affecting the trajectory of young people's lives.

Again, my generation thought by their late twenties they would own a home, in fact, perhaps moving on, fixing up, and looking at second homes. This has all changed.

Today students are caught between a rock and a hard place as they have all this debt they must carry forward.

The other thing that is so interesting is we are scrambling around here trying to figure out ways to deal with this issue. It turns out, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has projected the loan program is actually generating revenue more than $50 billion this year and over $180 billion between now and 2023. We are actually making money on these loans. Frankly, if we don't look at the program and fix it, the irony will be students will pay more and the government will take in profits. In the long run, I think we will be worse for it because we will be depriving a whole generation of the kind of education opportunity they need.

I think we have to do more. I introduced a long-term solution in April, the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act, which will set student loans based on the actual cost of financing and administering the program. It will also protect students with a cap. I think that is essential. We have to understand the interest rates might rise to a point where we need to cap them to protect students. It would also allow refinancing, which is something that has not been seriously discussed. We frankly need more time to discuss that. We need the time; let's take the time.

I urge my colleagues to join me. Let's take up and pass the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. Give students the chance to go to school this fall with a 3.4 percent subsidized interest rate. Give us not only the chance but give us the incentives and give us the marching orders to fix this problem comprehensively.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am prepared to make a request for consent.

I believe the Republican leader will respond, and at the conclusion of his response I wish to be recognized to make additional comments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1238, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act, the text of which is at the desk, the bill be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, let me thank the Republican leader for cooperating. We are attempting to move forward legislation with respect to student loans. We will shortly reach July 1. At that point, the student loan rate for subsidized Stafford loans doubles from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The legislation I propose would be a 1-year extension of the 3.4-percent rate, allowing students, low- and middle- income students to continue to benefit from a low interest rate.

Our core principles in advancing this 1-year extension of present law are that we believe--and I think this is shared by all of my colleagues--that talented students deserve access to a college education. They need affordable loans and Pell grants and other financial aid. We also believe interest rates should not be set any higher than necessary to protect the taxpayer and break even on the program; that it should not be a profit center for the Federal Government as it is today.

We also believe very strongly that when students take these loans out, particularly the subsidized loans, they deserve predictability. They should know how much they will have to repay. So if you are going to go for an adjustable rate, there has to be a reasonable cap. In fact, my understanding is in the history of the Federal Student Loan Program there has either been an adjustable rate with a cap or a fixed rate. We have never left students solely at the mercy of the market.

We provide subsidized loans to students because we believe we have to invest in Americans, in their talent, in their ability not only to advance their own lives but also to contribute to the greater life of America. It should not be a program that is designed to generate revenue. The reality is today, wittingly or unwittingly, this program, and indeed as would be true for the proposals that have been put on the table, is generating huge amounts of profits to the Federal Government--it has been estimated more than $50 billion this year. We should be investing in the potential of young Americans, not looking at them as profit centers to help us reduce the deficit.

I know there have been great efforts on the part of my colleagues, sincere efforts, thoughtful efforts by many--my colleagues Senator Alexander, Senator Manchin, Senator King, Senator Harkin--chairman of the committee--Senator Warren, Senator Hagan, Senator Franken, Senator Stabenow--to come to a long-term solution. There has been a great effort, but we are not there yet.

I think we need, frankly, at least one more year so we can sit down and do this correctly. If you look at the proposals that are out there, there is a short-run attractiveness because the rates have been configured so they look pretty low. But if you follow the rates out, within 3 or 4 years they are above the statute, the law that goes into effect on July 1. They are above the 6.8-percent rate. It is almost as if we are looking back a few years ago--not about student loans but about mortgages. There were a lot of people sitting on 5-percent fixed- rate mortgages and someone walked in and said: Have I got a deal for you. I can give you 2 years at 3 percent. It goes up, but don't worry because you can readjust it down the road and refinance it.

We found out because of many circumstances, come 2008-2009, there was no getting out. In fact, a lot of people discovered they would have been better off sticking with the fixed loan.

That is an analogy. That is not exactly on point. But if you look at all of these proposals, the arc of the increase in interest rates is going up. And, by the way, it has not fully incorporated what the Federal Reserve has already said publicly. Chairman Bernanke said it very clearly, that they are ending quantitative easing. That means one thing: Interest rates go up, and they might go up a lot faster than we even expect right now.

I think another important point which is critical is that the proposals we have seen so far have not had a cap on them, an adequate cap. There has been some discussion we do not need a cap because if you consolidate a loan there is a cap built into the consolidation program. First of all, there is a problem with that in that except for the subsidized Stafford loans, the other federally supported loans start accruing interest even while you are still in school so you are building up a big mountain of debt. When you consolidate, what you are doing, essentially, is stretching out the payments, making a longer term which adds more interest. It is like the difference between a short-term loan and a long-term loan. You end up paying a lot more interest on your house than you do on a 2- or 3-year loan on your car.

For many reasons, both technical and otherwise, we believe, particularly as we are several days from July 1, we need to go ahead and give this body the time to deliberate. Frankly, we just passed a historic piece of legislation. That was not done in the waning hours of the session. It was not done without hearings. It was not done without a lot of back and forth. It was not done without a lot of tension on the floor. Yet we are proposing fundamental changes to our Federal Student Loan Program in the waning hours before a recess.

Mr. President, 36 Democrats and counting have joined me and Senator Hagan to extend this lending rate for 1 more year.

We have in the past been able to come together. In fact, we adopted the 3.4-percent interest rate, fixed rate, in 2007. The vote in this Senate was 79 to 12, Republicans and Democrats saying: A good deal for students, a low interest rate.

I think we still have to look for a much better deal than has been suggested by some of the proposals. Our proposal for a one-year extension is also fiscally responsible because we are offsetting the cost of roughly about $4.2 billion by closing a tax loophole--which I think should be closed on its own face, but it would allow us to pay for this extension for 1 year. I will remind my colleagues that a year ago we did precisely the same kind of thing.

Some would say we have not used the year well enough. But if you think about the debate we had on background checks and firearms; if you think about this historic debate on immigration; if you think about many of the other serious debates we have had, I think we have been engaged on this floor decisively. But now it is time, again, to move to this education issue and give it the full consideration students and families deserve.

I am disappointed. I am sure my colleagues who are suggesting alternative proposals are disappointed. But I am most disappointed we cannot at least tell students today: We have your back. You are going to be safe for another year, with your loans at 3.4-percent interest. And during that time, we have to fix this--and not just simply changing around interest rates but addressing how to help borrowers pay down the debt that is outstanding. It is a huge problem, a trillion dollar problem. What about the incentives for lowering the costs of college? What about other structural changes we have to make? They will unlikely be made if we somehow sort of leave here with a ``fix'' that ultimately, in a very short period of time, raises rates beyond the 6.8 percent and also takes off the pressure, legitimate pressure for us not just to treat one part of the problem but comprehensively deal with the issue of the cost of higher education for families.

With that, I have been asked to propose a unanimous consent.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 7 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Fischer, Menendez, Casey, Klobuchar and Franken in the introduction of the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Reauthorization Act. This legislation is an extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in the Senate over the past decade to hopefully one day cure cancers in children, adolescents, and young adults.

I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family from Warwick, Rhode Island in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost their son, Ben, when he was just 9 years old to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive tumor in the brain. With the strong support of families like the Haights for increased research into the causes of childhood cancers and improved treatment options, I introduced legislation that eventually was signed into law in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

Since then, I have worked to secure funding for these efforts, including $6 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to improve the ability of state cancer registries to rapidly collect information on the diagnosis and treatment information of children with cancer, and $1 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to help educate families about treatment options and follow-up care.

Then, last year, I met Grace. Grace, from Providence, RI, is now 10 years old and is a survivor of medulloblastoma, another type of tumor that forms in the brain. Grace and her family reminded me that we must do more to ensure biomedical advances can continue so that better treatments will become available.

With Ben and Grace, and their families, in mind, I have been working to update the original Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

As such, the reauthorization we are introducing today would help create a comprehensive children's cancer biorepository for researchers to use in searching for biospecimens to study, would improve surveillance of childhood cancer cases, and would require a study of ways to encourage the development of novel treatments.

I am also pleased to be reintroducing the Pediatric, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Act. Through increased research and advances in medical innovation, the population of survivors of childhood cancer has grown from just four percent

surviving more than five years in 1960 to nearly eighty percent today.

Unfortunately, even after beating cancer, as many as \2/3\ of survivors suffer from late effects of their disease or treatment, including second cancers and organ damage. This legislation would enhance research on the late effects of childhood cancers, improve collaboration among providers so that doctors are better able to care for this population as they age, and establish a new pilot program to begin to explore models of care for childhood cancer survivors.

We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. I look forward to working with Senator Fischer, and our colleagues, to see these bills enacted.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Fischer, Menendez, Casey, Klobuchar and Franken in the introduction of the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Reauthorization Act. This legislation is an extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in the Senate over the past decade to hopefully one day cure cancers in children, adolescents, and young adults.

I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family from Warwick, Rhode Island in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost their son, Ben, when he was just 9 years old to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive tumor in the brain. With the strong support of families like the Haights for increased research into the causes of childhood cancers and improved treatment options, I introduced legislation that eventually was signed into law in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

Since then, I have worked to secure funding for these efforts, including $6 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to improve the ability of state cancer registries to rapidly collect information on the diagnosis and treatment information of children with cancer, and $1 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to help educate families about treatment options and follow-up care.

Then, last year, I met Grace. Grace, from Providence, RI, is now 10 years old and is a survivor of medulloblastoma, another type of tumor that forms in the brain. Grace and her family reminded me that we must do more to ensure biomedical advances can continue so that better treatments will become available.

With Ben and Grace, and their families, in mind, I have been working to update the original Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

As such, the reauthorization we are introducing today would help create a comprehensive children's cancer biorepository for researchers to use in searching for biospecimens to study, would improve surveillance of childhood cancer cases, and would require a study of ways to encourage the development of novel treatments.

I am also pleased to be reintroducing the Pediatric, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Act. Through increased research and advances in medical innovation, the population of survivors of childhood cancer has grown from just four percent

surviving more than five years in 1960 to nearly eighty percent today.

Unfortunately, even after beating cancer, as many as \2/3\ of survivors suffer from late effects of their disease or treatment, including second cancers and organ damage. This legislation would enhance research on the late effects of childhood cancers, improve collaboration among providers so that doctors are better able to care for this population as they age, and establish a new pilot program to begin to explore models of care for childhood cancer survivors.

We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. I look forward to working with Senator Fischer, and our colleagues, to see these bills enacted.

Mr. President, I would like to offer some brief reflections on the distinguished service and accomplishments of Senator Frank Lautenberg.

He possessed an unwavering commitment to our country and its highest ideals of duty and fairness.

His achievements over a lifetime well lived are impressive. He came from very humble beginnings but showed tremendous determination and tenacity as he achieved success in business and politics.

Senator Lautenberg was a World War II veteran--serving honorably in the U.S. Army Signal Corps from 1942 to 1946, posted in Europe with so many other young Americans to fight in a war that had to be fought. In fact, he was the last World War II veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate.

After the war, he like so many benefited from the GI bill and graduated from Columbia University. He had seen the hard work of his parents and began a career in business where he recognized the importance of computer technology well before the advent of many innovations we take for granted today. His success in helping create the Nation's first payroll services company, Automatic Data Processing, could have led Senator Lautenberg anywhere, but it was his desire to give back to his community and to his country that had given him an education and a promising future that led him to the Senate.

When he set his eye on doing something, being on the other side of him meant you were in for a battle. That resolve may be a reason why he had so many legislative achievements. Indeed, he knew how important infrastructure is to the economy, and his work to preserve and improve Amtrak has helped millions of Americans who rely on rail for commuting, travel, and commerce every day. Growing up in an industrial area, he knew how important it was to respect the environment, so he fought, even when the odds were against him, for cleaning up Superfund sites, improving air quality, and ensuring better oversight of toxic chemicals. And when he saw the health damage that smoking can cause, he led the way to ban smoking on airplanes.

The issue of gun safety is where I worked most closely with him. Those efforts to stem the flow of guns to criminals, terrorists, and others who shouldn't have access to firearms gave me a deeper appreciation for the strength of his principles and beliefs. There was no one more engaged in this issue, and I know that as the effort continues to close the gun show loophole, his commitment to reducing gun violence in our country will serve as a true guidepost.

As so many pointed out in the wonderful service remembering Senator Lautenberg, he was tenacious as well as humorous. Indeed, he fought for New Jersey and for what he believed was right each and every single day.

The Senate and our country have lost an important voice on so many issues, but his work will carry on and not be forgotten. Indeed, the benefits to our Nation of all his efforts and dedication will last for years to come.

I extend my deepest condolences to Bonnie; his children, Ellen Lautenberg, Nan Morgart, Lisa Birer, and Joshua Lautenberg; his stepchildren, Danielle Englebardt and Lara Englebardt Metz; and his 13 grandchildren, on behalf of myself, my constituents, and the State of Rhode Island. Their loss is greater than ours because they have lost a husband, father, and grandfather. He will be missed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allocated 8 minutes and that the remaining Democratic time be under the control of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. President, I rise to add my support to S. 744, the comprehensive immigration bill we have been debating over the past week.

I first wish to thank the eight Senators who came together to draft this bipartisan bill. They have done an extraordinary job. And I wish to particularly thank Senator Leahy for his brilliant leadership as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Immigration reform is an important priority that for far too long has been left unaddressed. We all agree that the current system is broken. The bill before us is a realistic approach to fixing this broken system. That is certainly better than continuing the failed status quo.

I have long been an advocate for comprehensive and commonsense immigration reform that is tough but also fair. Standing here, addressing my colleagues, urging immigration reform, I cannot help but remember the 2006 and 2007 immigration debates and the many calls to pass immigration reform during that time.

Today, 6 years later, we still have not passed needed reform, responded to the overwhelming call to do so from the American people, and moved our immigration system into the 21st century. Today we once again have the chance to act and pass comprehensive immigration reform.

This bill includes strong border security measures to better protect our national security and to ensure that those trying to come to the United States for better opportunities do so legally. It calls for persistent surveillance of the entire border, for the apprehension of 90 percent of the illegal entries, and makes the investments in infrastructure and technology we need to meet these tough goals.

The Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to submit both a comprehensive southern border security strategy and a southern border fencing strategy to Congress, plans to achieve these goals, before the 11 million immigrants waiting in the shadows could even begin the very tough but fair earned path to citizenship. This rigorous path includes criminal background and national security checks; paying fines, fees, and taxes; learning civics and English; and going to the back of the immigration waiting line.

The bill before us also improves worksite enforcement to better protect

all workers and wages, and it makes changes to our immigration system that will help us retain the bright and talented leaders of today and tomorrow and reduce backlogs and inefficiencies.

As we continue this debate, I am hopeful the Senate will have the opportunity to consider three amendments I have filed.

In the 1990s, Liberian refugees fled a brutal civil war that killed more than 150,000 people and displaced more than half of the population. Since then, these individuals have been granted temporary protected status or deferred enforced departure, granted by the administration because the conditions in their home country of Liberia were too dangerous for them to return. Many of these individuals have now been legally residing--legally residing--in our country for more than 20 years, paying taxes, holding jobs, and being part of our communities.

Amendment No. 1224 would clarify one aspect of the merit-based track two system, ensuring that it makes eligible these Liberians and others who were granted TPS or DED due to dangerous or inhospitable conditions in their home countries and who meet the 10-year minimum requirement for long-term alien workers.

This bill intended to include these populations. However, the long- term alien section of the bill uses the term ``lawfully present.'' Since this term is not defined by statute and could be subject to interpretation, these Liberians and others in similar situations could be inadvertently excluded from this track. The intention was always to include these individuals. I ask my colleagues to work with me to correct this so these deserving individuals, whom four different Presidents have supported, are not left behind on a technicality.

The second amendment, No. 1223, recognizes the longstanding role that libraries have played in helping new Americans learn English, American civics, and integrate into our local communities. It ensures that they continue to have a voice in these critical efforts. Across the United States, libraries are the cornerstone of all sorts of educational activities. In fact, according to the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), more than 55 percent of new Americans use a public library at least once a week.

Libraries offer learning opportunities to new Americans in a trusted environment. We have to recognize the vital importance of libraries as we ask individuals to come forward to learn English, to learn civics, and to learn the skills that are required to participate fully in the life of the American people.

This amendment expands on the recent partnership between U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and IMLS, and ensures that libraries remain a keystone and a resource for new Americans. This amendment would add the IMLS as a member of the Task Force on New Americans to help direct integration policy and clarify the role that libraries will continue to play in facilitating these services.

I have also filed an amendment with Senators Schumer and Casey, No. 1233 that would upgrade the immigration bar on expatriate tax dodgers. I authored an amendment to the 1996 immigration law that prohibits citizens who renounced their citizenship in order to avoid taxation from reentering the United States. I was prompted to act after hearing about a raft of wealthy U.S. citizens who gave up their citizenship to avoid paying taxes but would obtain reentry to the United States very easily and continue, effectually, to live their lives as Americans, even though they were for, tax purposes, foreigners.

One of the more egregious examples was Kenneth Dart, a billionaire who, in the early 1990s, renounced his American citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes. He became a citizen of Belize and then was appointed by the Government of Belize to be a consular officer in Sarasota, FL, Mr. Dart's hometown. This ruse and other ruses such as this must be stopped. My amendment would make it clear that the Department of Homeland Security must stop this flouting of the law by people who avoid taxes by changing their citizenship and then freely return to the United States.

I look forward to action on these amendments during this debate. This is an important debate. Indeed, the strong bipartisan vote that brought us to this moment procedurally captures the overwhelming recognition that we need to fix the system. We need to move forward.

This is a situation where we have a bipartisan bill that has overwhelming support in the United States. We must move it forward, amend it appropriately as I have suggested, pass it, and then send it to the House with the hope and the expectation that the President will sign this bill, opening a new era in this country for the millions who are seeking to be Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an exceptional library advocate and public servant in Rhode Island, Howard Boksenbaum, who is retiring from his position as the State's chief library officer after a long and distinguished career.

Howard graduated with a linguistics degree from Washington University in St. Louis and Waseda University in Tokyo, earned a master's degree in library and information science from the University of Pittsburgh, and started his career working at various library positions in Pennsylvania before moving to Rhode Island.

His service to Rhode Island libraries began nearly 34 years ago at the Island Interrelated Library System, which, at the time, was one of five regional library systems in the State. In 1988, he joined the State's Department of State Library Services, which later became the Office of Library and Information Services, OLIS. After serving in various capacities within these agencies, and as assistant director for Central Information Management Services at the Rhode Island Division of Information Technology, Howard became the state's chief library officer in 2007.

During his more than three decades working for Rhode Island libraries and the State's library agency, Howard helped improve Rhode Island's libraries in many important ways. His focus on and passion for technology brought our State's libraries further into the digital age. He worked to consolidate Rhode Island's regional library networks into a single statewide system and created Ocean State Free-Net, a public access computer network. He also played a major role in other statewide technology initiatives, including working on the state's website launch and helping to establish the statewide public safety communication network, RISCON. Howard was also part of the Rhode Island Library Association and the Coalition for Library Advocates.

His view of the importance of libraries to our citizens, to our communities, and to our Nation can be found in a quote of his soon after he became chief library officer:

A library is bigger than the web because it includes it,

bigger than its users because they grow there. Unlike a

school, a library is elective, unlike a store, a library

belongs to its users, unlike the World Wide Web, a library is

people, is history, is culture, is connection. A library is

the past and the present and will be changing again to be the

future.

Rhode Islanders have been fortunate to have Howard devote more than three decades of service to the state and its libraries, and especially for the past 6 years he served as chief library officer. I have also had the benefit of his knowledge and insights about libraries, and worked with him on legislative initiatives to enhance federal support for libraries.

I would also like to recognize Howard's wife Judith Stokes and his three daughters Anna, Martha, and Emily. I join many others in the State in thanking Howard for his dedication and service to our State's libraries, and I ask my colleagues to join us in commending Howard Boksenbaum on his long and accomplished career. I wish him fulfillment and continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Blunt in the introduction of the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, by 2020, there will be a shortage of 91,000 physicians. Approximately half of the shortage, 45,000, will be in primary care.

Individuals and families living in underserved areas, urban and rural, will continue to be those most disadvantaged by this shortage. According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Medicare every day through 2030. The most recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office predict that 27 million individuals will gain access to health insurance by 2017 as a result of the Affordable Care Act. With an aging population and increasing number of individuals with health insurance, the gap between patients and providers is expected to widen. The Affordable Care Act took steps to address this shortage, but we can do more.

The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would authorize programs that would grow the overall number of health care providers, as well as encourage providers to pursue careers in geographic and practice areas of highest need.

Building on the success of the National Health Service Corp, NHSC, Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs, and State Loan Repayment Program, this legislation would establish a state scholarship program. Like the NHSC State Loan Repayment Program, States would be able to receive a dollar-for-dollar match to support individuals that commit to practicing in the State in which the scholarship was issued after completing their education and training. At least 50 percent of the funding would be required to support individuals committed to pursuing careers in primary care. The States would have the flexibility to use the remaining 50 percent to support scholarships to educate students in other documented health care professional shortages in the state that are approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would also authorize grants to medical schools to develop primary care mentors on faculty and in the community. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, graduating medical students consistently state that role models are one of the most important factors affecting the career path they choose. Building a network of primary care mentors in the classroom and in a variety of practice settings will help guide more medical students into careers in primary care.

The legislation would couple these mentorship grants with an initiative to improve the education and training offered by medical schools in competencies most critical to primary care, including patient-centered medical homes, primary and behavioral health integration, and team-based care.

It would also direct the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study and make recommendations about ways to limit the administrative burden on providers in documenting cognitive services delivered to patients. Primary care providers treat patients in need of these services almost exclusively, and as such, spend a significant percentage of their day documenting. That is not the case for providers who perform procedures, like surgeries. This IOM study would help uncover ways to simplify documentation requirements, particularly for delivering cognitive services, in order to eliminate one of the potential factors that may discourage medical students from pursuing careers in primary care.

I am pleased that providers across the spectrum of care recognize that this bipartisan legislation is part of the solution to addressing the looming health care workforce shortage and have lent their support, including: the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, the American Association of College of Osteopathic Medicine, the American College of Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association, the Association of Academic Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Society of General Internal Medicine.

I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders as well as Senator Blunt and our colleagues to pass the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act in order to help ensure patients have access to the health care they need.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Blunt in the introduction of the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, by 2020, there will be a shortage of 91,000 physicians. Approximately half of the shortage, 45,000, will be in primary care.

Individuals and families living in underserved areas, urban and rural, will continue to be those most disadvantaged by this shortage. According to the Pew Research Center, roughly 10,000 baby boomers will become eligible for Medicare every day through 2030. The most recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office predict that 27 million individuals will gain access to health insurance by 2017 as a result of the Affordable Care Act. With an aging population and increasing number of individuals with health insurance, the gap between patients and providers is expected to widen. The Affordable Care Act took steps to address this shortage, but we can do more.

The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would authorize programs that would grow the overall number of health care providers, as well as encourage providers to pursue careers in geographic and practice areas of highest need.

Building on the success of the National Health Service Corp, NHSC, Scholarship and Loan Repayment Programs, and State Loan Repayment Program, this legislation would establish a state scholarship program. Like the NHSC State Loan Repayment Program, States would be able to receive a dollar-for-dollar match to support individuals that commit to practicing in the State in which the scholarship was issued after completing their education and training. At least 50 percent of the funding would be required to support individuals committed to pursuing careers in primary care. The States would have the flexibility to use the remaining 50 percent to support scholarships to educate students in other documented health care professional shortages in the state that are approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act would also authorize grants to medical schools to develop primary care mentors on faculty and in the community. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, graduating medical students consistently state that role models are one of the most important factors affecting the career path they choose. Building a network of primary care mentors in the classroom and in a variety of practice settings will help guide more medical students into careers in primary care.

The legislation would couple these mentorship grants with an initiative to improve the education and training offered by medical schools in competencies most critical to primary care, including patient-centered medical homes, primary and behavioral health integration, and team-based care.

It would also direct the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study and make recommendations about ways to limit the administrative burden on providers in documenting cognitive services delivered to patients. Primary care providers treat patients in need of these services almost exclusively, and as such, spend a significant percentage of their day documenting. That is not the case for providers who perform procedures, like surgeries. This IOM study would help uncover ways to simplify documentation requirements, particularly for delivering cognitive services, in order to eliminate one of the potential factors that may discourage medical students from pursuing careers in primary care.

I am pleased that providers across the spectrum of care recognize that this bipartisan legislation is part of the solution to addressing the looming health care workforce shortage and have lent their support, including: the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, the American Association of College of Osteopathic Medicine, the American College of Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association, the Association of Academic Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Society of General Internal Medicine.

I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders as well as Senator Blunt and our colleagues to pass the Building a Health Care Workforce for the Future Act in order to help ensure patients have access to the health care they need.

Mr. President, I ask through the Chair if the Senator from Vermont would yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, July 1 is less than 3 weeks away, and unless Congress acts, the interest rate on need-based student loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, making college more expensive for more than 7 million students across the Nation. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 74, S. 953, the Student Loan Affordability Act; that the bill be read a third time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I certainly respect my colleague's words about working together. I think we have to work together. I also respect the fact that he has made a proposal and the President has made a proposal. In my mind, both proposals fall very short on several issues. First, they use a baseline rate of the 10-year T-bill, which we have not generally used before for setting student loan interest rates. There is no cap on either proposal. One of the advantages the President's proposal has, I will admit, is income-based repayment. So I have serious reservations about both proposals.

I think the issue that faces us now is when we talk about trying to create a long-term solution, it is not just about structuring interest rates, it is also about refinancing loans that exist today and those that may come due in the future. Student loan debt is one of the greatest hindrances to young people today and ultimately to our economy in terms of buying homes and doing the things we expect college graduates could do before they turn 30--things that are going to be put on hold because they are paying off huge debts.

The other thing we have to do is look at the structure of costs for colleges and the extraordinary growth in college costs.

So rather than simply saying we fix the problem by going to a higher market rate, which, by the way, will cost all borrowers, particularly low- and middle-income borrowers, significantly more money--that is not fixing the problem. In many cases, it is creating a new set of problems. It will saddle present students with higher interest payments and higher loans. In the long run, it will not deal with this crushing debt that already exists for those people who have been borrowing.

I recognize that we have to work together. My concern is one of calendar. We have less than 3 weeks. There is no doubt that we are going to be on the floor with this very important historic immigration bill for all of those 3 weeks. I don't think we will have the time to fashion a balanced approach for all of these different issues, bring it to the floor, and have the kind of vigorous debate that is very important.

So I clearly recognize that we need long-term solutions, but what we don't need to do is double interest rates on students. It is going to immediately impact families across this Nation.

Again, the Senator has been very forthright but also thoughtful in terms of making a proposal. We disagree, but he has come to the floor with a long-term solution. I believe we have to work toward a long-term solution. My sense is that it will not be done in 3 weeks. It cannot possibly even get to the floor. Even if we came to a meeting of the minds, there is always a possibility that one or two of our colleagues will say: I have a different approach, and therefore we won't have the procedural means to reach the floor.

So I am actually asking simply to let us have the time to work thoughtfully on a bipartisan basis to craft not a solution to a rate issue but a comprehensive approach to the issues that burden every family in this country, which include, how do I afford college? What do the colleges do to make it more affordable? What do we do to make loans be more consistent with market rates but with protections for borrowers?

On a final point, I was in law school and had the benefit of Federal assistance. In 1981 market-based rates under the Republican proposal would have reached about 17 percent. With the cost of college now, I cannot imagine borrowing that kind of money at a 17-percent fixed- interest rate. Students would be financially flattened before they got their degree.

Again, I appreciate the objection. The objection has been made, and I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the Senator from Oklahoma. As far as the legislation that has been passed by the House Republicans, we know that for the 4 years of borrowing at the maximum loan amounts, for students entering college in 2018 and 2019, it would be $5,650 more. Whatever subsidy we are giving, those families are going to see $5,650 more in costs to their student loans. I am told the Senate Republican version would increase costs, versus current rates, by $6,700.

So talking about the subsidies we are giving and not giving disguises the fact that if we don't act by July 1, we are going to see students over the next several years increasing their debt, not decreasing it and not even holding it constant.

The other remarkable thing is that we score things based on budget CBO scoring. I am also informed that based upon the cost of borrowing, the Federal Government and their lending--they are making billions of dollars a year now on student loans. It is a profit center for the Federal Government. And, indeed, in looking at the 10-year projections for the bill that I believe was submitted by my Republican colleagues, there is a projected $15.6 billion in additional savings or income to the Federal Government.

We are in this irony where students are now going to be contributing billions of dollars to deficit reduction, weapons platforms, and other programs, but the reality they are going to see is that this mountain of debt they have today is much higher. Too many of them will not be able to climb it, and too many others won't even begin the trip. It will result in an economy that is underperforming and potential students who don't go to college, and therefore their income will be a fraction of what it would be, and in the long run our economy will suffer grievously. Again, these are extraordinarily complicated, challenging, interrelated, and difficult issues.

I would like to believe we could get this done in 3 weeks. With the 100 Senators who are with us, the possibility of getting anything done in 3 weeks is virtually nil.

I thank the chairman from Vermont, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe-a-Book Act. I thank Senators Stabenow, Cowan, and Blumenthal for joining us as original cosponsors of this bipartisan bill.

Literacy skills are the foundation for success in school and in life. Developing and building these skills begins at home, with parents as the first teachers.

Our legislation would create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long-standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants on a competitive basis to high- quality non-profit entities to train doctors and nurses to discuss with parents the importance of reading aloud to their children and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from six months to five years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading.

The pediatric literacy model implemented by Reach Out and Read has consistently demonstrated effectiveness in increasing family engagement and boosting children's reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of Rhode Island's Reach Out and Read sites.

The Prescribe a Book Act would leverage federal dollars to expand pediatric literacy initiatives so that more young children reap the developmental benefits of having books at home and being read to by their parents. Federal grant funding for Reach Out and Read through the Department of Education helped build a successful public-private partnership that has been matched by tens of millions of dollars from the private sector and state governments. The Prescribe a Book Act would establish a formal authorization for activities modeled on this type of successful partnership.

I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Prescribe a Book Act, and to work to include its provisions in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleagues Senators Cochran, Murray, and Whitehouse, the Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act.

Since 1965, more than 60 education and library studies have produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college and careers. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills.

Our bipartisan legislation would reauthorize and strengthen the Improving Literacy through School Libraries program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the only federal

initiative explicitly dedicated to supporting and enhancing our nation's school libraries. The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; awarding grants for a period of three years; and ensuring that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of students with special learning needs, including English learners.

The SKILLS Act would also strengthen Title I by asking state and school district plans to address the development of effective school library programs to help students gain digital literacy skills, master the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards adopted by the state, and graduate from high school ready for college and careers. Additionally, the legislation would broaden the focus of training, professional development, and recruitment activities under Title II to include school librarians.

Absent a clear federal investment, the libraries in many of our high poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology, and in turn, students would be cut off from a vital information hub that connects them to the tools they need to develop critical thinking and research skills necessary for success. This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to sustain our federal investment in this area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is of critical importance.

I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the bipartisan Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act, and to work together to ensure that it becomes a part of the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.