Floor Statements

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado, Senator Udall, for his leadership on this very important issue. I also want to commend my colleague Senator Whitehouse, who has been extraordinarily effective as a national leader on energy policy and ocean policy.

As Senator Udall pointed out, we are at a very critical moment. Nationally, with the support of the wind production tax credit, or the PTC, nearly 500 facilities across 44 States manufacture components for the wind energy industry. These products are critical to our future. The U.S. content of wind turbines installed in the United States has grown from 25 percent prior to 2005 to 60 percent today, according to the American Wind Energy Association. So we are actually seeing a situation in which American components are displacing foreign components in wind turbine installations that are being deployed here in the United States. That is an encouraging sign, because it means more jobs in manufacturing and it means more American content in products that would be purchased by Americans. This is fundamentally premised on the availability of the wind PTC, and so we have to maintain it. If we do not, then we are again at the mercy of world markets in which we suspect that there are countries that are supporting, directly and indirectly, their wind energy sectors very aggressively.

We need comprehensive reform of our Tax Code. That will be discussed, I am sure, in the months ahead. But we can't forget that this production tax credit for wind and credits for other clean energy resources support manufacturing jobs across this country, saves money for middle-class families, and increases our global competitiveness. As we think about tax reform, we also have to think about those programs that produce jobs, and this program is one of those job-producing tax provisions.

We in Rhode Island have taken steps, as Senator Udall has alluded to, to try to position ourselves to be at the forefront of clean energy development and wind production, particularly offshore wind production. Due in part to strong State policy--and I will commend my colleagues in the State government--we ranked fifth in the country according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy's annual energy efficiency scorecard. Our main utility, National Grid, and our State leaders are taking very aggressive steps to lower the amount of energy we use, which helps us in terms of our competitiveness across the globe and with other States in the country.

We have also tried to be a leader in offshore wind, for obvious reasons. We are the Ocean State. We are linked to the ocean, inextricably and historically. Offshore wind is something that could be a huge benefit not only for ourselves but for our region.

Quonset Point is a former naval base which was closed in the 1970s. Fortunately, through the work of our predecessors, it became the site of submarine construction. Now it can also be the site of the assembly of turbines because of our access to the coast, because of the investments we made in terms of cranes, because of the investments we have made in shoring up the docks and the bulkheads. We are positioned to be a leader in the assembly of offshore wind turbines.

Part of this is not just the assembly expertise, but part of it is also the fact that we have done the fundamental environmental work necessary to make sure this economic development is environmentally sound as well as economically sound. Our local leaders have created the Ocean Special Area Management Plan, or Ocean SAMP, which essentially helps guide the locations for proper placement of wind turbines in the ocean. Among other considerations, it takes into consideration the geology, the tide, the fishing patterns, and the recreational use of the waters. They have come up with a very sophisticated plan, so we are well positioned to start creating this offshore wind production facility with the jobs onshore.

Also, as my colleague, the Senator from Colorado, pointed out, we have companies in the State that are leaders in the onshore wind industry. TPI Composites is one of them. It started as a boat builder. It used fiberglass to fabricate hulls for boats. It was sophisticated, it was state of the art. But then they shifted several years ago, because they saw the direction of this wind power development worldwide, and they started producing fiberglass blades for wind power. They have a wonderful facility in Warren, RI, and they were on the verge of expanding.

But again, as the Senator from Colorado pointed out, because of the uncertainty of extending the wind production tax credit and because of many other factors, unfortunately they have had to reduce some of their workforce. We want to see them start growing

again. We want TPI to be, as it is, a world leader in the production of this type of technology. It is sophisticated. These are good jobs. They are manufacturing jobs. They are American jobs. They are the kind of work we want to be doing worldwide, so that when you go anyplace in the world and you look up, you will see a blade whose tooling, engineering, and manufacturing processes were made in Warren, RI, not in China or elsewhere.

We have a challenge in Rhode Island with 11 percent unemployment. So these are the kinds of jobs we not only want for the moment, but we want for the future, because they are valuable. They are not just a contribution in the short run for putting people to work, they are a contribution in the long run, to our economy, to better use of energy, to better environmental quality, to a host of values that will turn out to have huge benefits for the people of Rhode Island and the people of this Nation.

I commend the Senator from Colorado for his consistent and persistent efforts to ensure we do not forget the wind production tax credit, and that we are still working hard to ensure we are able to support American manufacturing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Today's Supreme Court ruling that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and the law of the land is a victory, I believe, for Rhode Islanders and for all Americans. Families will no longer fear financial ruin if a child becomes seriously ill or face denial of health coverage due to a child's preexisting condition, and they will no longer have to worry that the terms of their coverage will run out as they are being treated after a major medical emergency.

Indeed, tonight, all Americans can sleep a little easier knowing they and their children will have access to quality, affordable health care. This is the type of security we want for our children and what this law will provide.

Indeed, for the first time in our history, parents can, with some confidence, trust that whatever lies ahead, their child at least will have access to affordable health care. We couldn't say that with any confidence a few years ago--even 2 years ago--before we took up this legislative activity.

This law has already benefited many people in Rhode Island, including individuals, families, and businesses. Children up to age 26 are now able to remain on their parents' health insurance plan. In Rhode Island, this has benefited an estimated 9,000 young adults and their parents. Over 15,000 Rhode Island seniors have saved a total of $14 million on prescription drugs since the law was enacted, an average of close to $600 annually. Seniors will continue to save on their prescription drug costs until the existing coverage gap is closed and will continue to have access to free preventive care such as annual wellness visits and screenings.

Rhode Islanders can now expect rebates if an insurance company spends too much on administrative costs and CEO bonuses instead of on their health care.

For too long, health insurance companies got away with increasing premiums and decreasing coverage, which resulted in higher costs and unfair practices. Beginning in 2014, Rhode Islanders will be able to purchase health insurance on a new exchange, a single point of entry where they can evaluate the costs and coverage of health insurance options. They will, indeed, for the first time for many Rhode Islanders, have a real choice about the health care they receive and the insurance they purchase. According to Families USA, 97,000 Rhode Islanders will have access to tax credits to make their coverage more affordable. Thousands more childless adults will gain coverage through the Medicaid Program.

Now that the Court has spoken, I hope we can work on a bipartisan basis to do what we must do, and that is to create jobs and improve our economy. This health care decision is a landmark decision, but the work now--the work of all of us--should be to reinvigorate our economy so that not only can people have confidence in their health care, but they can have the further and indeed very primary confidence that they will have meaningful work.

In that respect, I am glad Congress is poised to take action that will enable millions of students and families across the country to breathe a sigh of relief about the student loans they need to borrow for the upcoming academic year. Everyone, from every sector of the country, will tell us that the key to our future is higher education, that we cannot be competitive in a world economy unless we have the best educated students in this country, that we cannot be the powerful force we have been in the world unless we have education.

The key for so many jobs today is going on past high school into postsecondary education. Yet we are days away--unless we act--from doubling the loan interest rate we are charging our students.

There has been quite a bit of stalling tactics for months. I hope those tactics are over, as the July 1 deadline approaches. I hope we are soon to take action to prevent the doubling of the subsidized Stafford loan interest rate.

I would like to thank majority leader Harry Reid for his tireless efforts to negotiate a bipartisan solution. I also wish to recognize and thank three other individuals who were absolutely critical in this effort, who were leaders, without equivocation, with deep conviction; that is, Chairman Tom Harkin of the HELP Committee, who led with vigor throughout this effort; Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who has been committed to this effort; and also our colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut. They have been extraordinary.

Last January, Congressman Courtney and I introduced legislation to permanently extend the law that makes college loans more affordable for millions of students across the country.

President Obama called on Congress to address the student loan interest rate hike in his State of the Union Address. Back then, many Republicans scoffed at the idea. In fact, they voted for budgets that assumed the interest rate would double, and they did that without any apparent equivocation.

But thanks to students and families across the country who raised their voices and made themselves heard, my colleagues got the message: Fixing the student loan interest rate matters. It matters a great deal. It matters to individuals trying to build a better life for themselves. It matters to parents whose dream to give their kids a chance at a better life depends on being able to afford college. It matters to our shared economic future because the single most important investment we as a nation can make is to educate our young people.

So thanks to groups such as Campus Progress, USSA, U.S. PIRG, Young

Invincibles, and the Rebuild the Dream coalition that pushed this issue to the forefront where it belongs. The letters, e-mails, calls, visits, bus tours, and campus rallies made a difference.

We should soon be voting, I hope, to keep this student loan rate low for another year. However, it is important to remember this is only a temporary, short-term fix. Now we need to develop longer term solutions to the growing burden of student loan debt, the rising cost of college, and the need to improve higher education outcomes so students complete their degrees and get the full benefit of their investment in education.

These are tough issues, but we have to address them head on. Our economy and our future depends on addressing these issues.

It is estimated, for example, that more than 60 percent of the jobs will require some postsecondary education by the year 2018. In 2010, only 38 percent of working-age adults held a 2-year or 4-year degree. We have very few years to go from 40 percent to 60 percent. That gap represents the challenge we have in being a competitive economic force in the world. Certainly, if we are ever going to close that gap, we have to make sure we do not double the interest rate on Stafford loans, as a first step.

But, as I suggest, there are many other steps we must take. We have to address the rising cost of college. The cost of attending college has increased by 559 percent since 1985--559 percent--rising far faster than costs for gasoline, health care, and other consumer items.

Keeping student loans affordable and interest rates low is one part of the solution. Providing more grant aid through Pell grants and other programs is another.

We need to call on institutions to do their part to keep costs in check. Yes, the college community has to rally around this and has to think of innovative ways to provide excellent education at a lower cost, a more affordable cost. States have to play a role too. When State support for higher education goes down, tuition goes up. The crises of so many States--real crises, difficult crises--have forced them to reduce their support for higher education, and the result, as I suggest, has been tuitions climb, and that is another burden middle America and middle-class, middle-income families are bearing.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on developing a comprehensive approach to addressing these issues.

Also, I would just like to say, I hope we are on the verge--at least for the next year--of avoiding a doubling of interest rates on student loans. We have a long way to go to ensure that every American with talent and drive and the skills has the means to go to college. This is an important first step. There are many more we must take, and I hope we do that very quickly.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that members of Senator Bingaman's staff--Lisa Peterkin, James Anderson, Bijan Peters, Kendra Doychak, and Eugenia Woods--be granted the privileges of the floor for the pendency of today, Thursday, June, 28, 2012.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Tim Johnson, Whitehouse, and Blumenthal in the introduction of the Immunization Improvements Act. This legislation builds on my longstanding work, including several provisions I authored in the Affordable Care Act, to improve vaccination rates and population-based immunity.

Our introduction of this legislation is particularly timely given a recent report cited in yesterday's Wall Street Journal revealing the number of deaths globally as a result of the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009 and 2010. The analysis found that the number of deaths from H1N1 to be 15 times the original reports, up from 18,500 to 280,000 cases. In the United States, the estimates are more than triple the original cases, from 8,500 to nearly 30,000.

Two provisions of the legislation we are introducing today are based on efforts underway in Rhode Island to improve vaccination rates against seasonal influenza and pneumonia. Specifically, it would authorize a five-state demonstration project that allows the state to purchase certain vaccines and distribute them free of charge to physicians for administration in seniors, who are at the highest risk of death from these preventable diseases. In addition to increasing vaccination rates, this model has limited the cost and administrative burden for providers and reduced the cost of vaccines to the Federal government.

The legislation would also require hospitals and long-term care facilities to report on influenza vaccination rates of health care workers with direct patient contact, the population most likely to spread the flu to ill patients that may be too weak to fight it. In Rhode Island, simply requiring health care facilities to report on health care worker influenza vaccinations has resulted in improved rates.

The Immunization Improvements Act would also update the allowable vaccine administration fees to providers

who vaccinate uninsured and underinsured children, as well as include a recommendation made by both the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and the Government Accountability Office to shift vaccine coverage in Medicare from Part D to Part B.

While there are many diseases and conditions that we have yet to prevent, there are those for which we already have vaccines. We must do more to ensure that these vaccines are available and accessed to protect the health of Americans.

This legislation has been endorsed by Every Child By Two, the Immunization Action Coalition, Partnership for Prevention, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and Trust for America's Health. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see these provisions enacted.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Zero Tolerance for Veteran Homelessness Act. This bill enhances and expands the assistance provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to homeless veterans and veterans at risk of becoming homeless.

It is one of our Nation's great tragedies that on any given night, according to estimates by the Department of Veterans Affairs, more than 67,000 veterans are homeless. The Department further estimates that about 145,000 veterans experience homelessness each year and that nearly 1/5th of all homeless people in the United States are veterans. These numbers are expected to climb as our service members who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan return home to face tough economic conditions.

Indeed, some veterans return from deployments to discover that the skills they have honed in their military service can be difficult to transfer to jobs in the private sector. Others struggle with physical or mental wounds of war. Still others return to communities that lack safe, affordable housing.

Our veterans have made great sacrifices to serve our country, and it is especially important to honor our commitment to them. The Department of Veterans Affairs is certainly a part of that commitment, providing benefits, medical care, support, and a sense of community to homeless veterans. However, a number of other federal agencies provide service to veterans, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and this legislation builds on that existing infrastructure.

Many programs through HUD and the VA are already helping homeless veterans with transitional housing, health care and rehabilitation services, and employment assistance. However, a more comprehensive and coordinated approach would strengthen these programs and help prevent more at-risk veterans from becoming homeless.

First, this legislation would make it easier for non-profits to apply for capital grants through the VA's grants and per diem program to build transitional housing and other facilities for veterans. This would streamline the process for non-profit organizations to be able to use financing from other sources to break ground on new housing construction. This is particularly important in the current economy, when non-profits are stretched and have to be more creative than ever to fund new capital projects.

Second, the Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act would create a Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs within HUD. The Special Assistant would ensure that veterans have access to HUD's existing programs and work to remove any barriers. The Special Assistant would also serve as a liaison between HUD and the VA, helping to connect and coordinate the services the two departments provide.

Additionally, this legislation recognizes the need to measure progress of efforts to combat homelessness. The bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to analyze existing programs and develop a comprehensive plan with recommendations on how to end homelessness among veterans. Establishing a plan with appropriate benchmarks will enable the VA to more easily track progress towards this important goal.

Only by working together, across the federal government and in partnership with non-profits and local housing authorities, will we be able to comprehensively help homeless veterans and reach those in danger of becoming homeless. We owe it to our veterans to ensure that they and their families have safe, affordable places to live and to provide the services and benefits they have earned. The nation's brave veterans deserve nothing less.

I am pleased that provisions from this bill, which follows on legislation I introduced last Congress, have been included in comprehensive legislation that is moving through the Veterans

Affairs Committee. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting these important efforts.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Tim Johnson, Whitehouse, and Blumenthal in the introduction of the Immunization Improvements Act. This legislation builds on my longstanding work, including several provisions I authored in the Affordable Care Act, to improve vaccination rates and population-based immunity.

Our introduction of this legislation is particularly timely given a recent report cited in yesterday's Wall Street Journal revealing the number of deaths globally as a result of the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009 and 2010. The analysis found that the number of deaths from H1N1 to be 15 times the original reports, up from 18,500 to 280,000 cases. In the United States, the estimates are more than triple the original cases, from 8,500 to nearly 30,000.

Two provisions of the legislation we are introducing today are based on efforts underway in Rhode Island to improve vaccination rates against seasonal influenza and pneumonia. Specifically, it would authorize a five-state demonstration project that allows the state to purchase certain vaccines and distribute them free of charge to physicians for administration in seniors, who are at the highest risk of death from these preventable diseases. In addition to increasing vaccination rates, this model has limited the cost and administrative burden for providers and reduced the cost of vaccines to the Federal government.

The legislation would also require hospitals and long-term care facilities to report on influenza vaccination rates of health care workers with direct patient contact, the population most likely to spread the flu to ill patients that may be too weak to fight it. In Rhode Island, simply requiring health care facilities to report on health care worker influenza vaccinations has resulted in improved rates.

The Immunization Improvements Act would also update the allowable vaccine administration fees to providers

who vaccinate uninsured and underinsured children, as well as include a recommendation made by both the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and the Government Accountability Office to shift vaccine coverage in Medicare from Part D to Part B.

While there are many diseases and conditions that we have yet to prevent, there are those for which we already have vaccines. We must do more to ensure that these vaccines are available and accessed to protect the health of Americans.

This legislation has been endorsed by Every Child By Two, the Immunization Action Coalition, Partnership for Prevention, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and Trust for America's Health. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see these provisions enacted.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Zero Tolerance for Veteran Homelessness Act. This bill enhances and expands the assistance provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to homeless veterans and veterans at risk of becoming homeless.

It is one of our Nation's great tragedies that on any given night, according to estimates by the Department of Veterans Affairs, more than 67,000 veterans are homeless. The Department further estimates that about 145,000 veterans experience homelessness each year and that nearly 1/5th of all homeless people in the United States are veterans. These numbers are expected to climb as our service members who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan return home to face tough economic conditions.

Indeed, some veterans return from deployments to discover that the skills they have honed in their military service can be difficult to transfer to jobs in the private sector. Others struggle with physical or mental wounds of war. Still others return to communities that lack safe, affordable housing.

Our veterans have made great sacrifices to serve our country, and it is especially important to honor our commitment to them. The Department of Veterans Affairs is certainly a part of that commitment, providing benefits, medical care, support, and a sense of community to homeless veterans. However, a number of other federal agencies provide service to veterans, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and this legislation builds on that existing infrastructure.

Many programs through HUD and the VA are already helping homeless veterans with transitional housing, health care and rehabilitation services, and employment assistance. However, a more comprehensive and coordinated approach would strengthen these programs and help prevent more at-risk veterans from becoming homeless.

First, this legislation would make it easier for non-profits to apply for capital grants through the VA's grants and per diem program to build transitional housing and other facilities for veterans. This would streamline the process for non-profit organizations to be able to use financing from other sources to break ground on new housing construction. This is particularly important in the current economy, when non-profits are stretched and have to be more creative than ever to fund new capital projects.

Second, the Zero Tolerance for Veterans Homelessness Act would create a Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs within HUD. The Special Assistant would ensure that veterans have access to HUD's existing programs and work to remove any barriers. The Special Assistant would also serve as a liaison between HUD and the VA, helping to connect and coordinate the services the two departments provide.

Additionally, this legislation recognizes the need to measure progress of efforts to combat homelessness. The bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to analyze existing programs and develop a comprehensive plan with recommendations on how to end homelessness among veterans. Establishing a plan with appropriate benchmarks will enable the VA to more easily track progress towards this important goal.

Only by working together, across the federal government and in partnership with non-profits and local housing authorities, will we be able to comprehensively help homeless veterans and reach those in danger of becoming homeless. We owe it to our veterans to ensure that they and their families have safe, affordable places to live and to provide the services and benefits they have earned. The nation's brave veterans deserve nothing less.

I am pleased that provisions from this bill, which follows on legislation I introduced last Congress, have been included in comprehensive legislation that is moving through the Veterans

Affairs Committee. I hope my colleagues will join in supporting these important efforts.

Madam President, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012, also known as the farm bill, makes some strides in reforming agriculture policy and subsidies. However, in my view, these reforms are not sufficient. Moreover, the bill contains cuts to nutrition and conservation programs and changes to eligibility for rural communities that when taken together make it worse than current law. As such, I will oppose the bill, although I do so reluctantly.

Indeed, despite my conclusions, I commend Chairwoman Stabenow for crafting a bill that delivers $23.6 billion in taxpayer savings over 10 years, cracks down on abuse, and eliminates egregious payments to nonfarmers, millionaire farmers, and farmers for crops they aren't growing.

The bill also makes several positive changes to programs important to my home State of Rhode Island that help small farms, farmers markets, and local food production. Rhode Island is a model example of the small and local farm movement. Since 2002, the number of farms has increased from 858 to 1,220 farms, whereas the average farm size in the State has actually decreased from 71 to 56 acres. That is why I am pleased that the bill includes many measures from Senator Sherrod Brown's Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act that I cosponsored and increased funding for specialty crop block grants to support research and promotion of fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops.

The bill also initiates new hunger-free communities incentive grants by providing funding of $100 million over 5 years for a national pilot to incentivize the purchase of fruits and vegetables at farmers markets by SNAP participants. A similar privately funded program has already been successfully implemented in Rhode Island where every $5 in SNAP benefits spent at a farmers market allows low-income individuals to receive an additional $2 in fruits and vegetables. It is good to see the ingenuity of our States replicated at the national level in ways to help low-income families have access to nutritious local foods.

Another positive measure is the enhancement of the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program to aid direct producer-to-consumer marketing channels and local food sales to retailers and institutions. The bill also doubles mandatory funding for this program.

However, as a recent Washington Post editorial stated, ``The current bill achieves some reform. There is still much more to be done.''

While the current bill cuts direct payments by $44.6 billion, it restores $28.5 billion of those cuts by creating a new market-based program called Agriculture Risk Coverage and adds an additional $5 billion for crop insurance.

Indeed, many of the reform measures in the bill do not go as far as those in the Lugar-Lautenberg Fresh Act of 2007, which I cosponsored during the last farm bill debate.

At the time, that measure would have increased funding by $2.5 billion for nutrition programs, SNAP, and specialty crops, and $1 billion more for conservation programs. In contrast, the Senate bill we are currently debating cuts SNAP by $4.5 billion and conservation programs by $6.4 billion.

The nutrition cuts are particularly challenging for Rhode Island, where roughly 1 in 6 people receives SNAP benefits and the unemployment rate remains at a too-high rate of 11 percent, the second highest in the country.

SNAP usage is unfortunately very high right now as Americans are struggling along with the economy to get back on track. No one wants to see such a high need, but at the same time SNAP assistance is the lifeline for these families to be able to put food on the table. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle shouldn't be trying to cut these funds; they should be working with us instead of thwarting our efforts to pass meaningful jobs bills that could help many of these SNAP beneficiaries find work and lessen their need for assistance.

That is why I cosponsored and voted in favor of Senator Gillibrand's amendment that would have restored the nutrition cuts, which the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates would result in an average benefit cut of $90 per month for 500,000 households nationwide. According to RI Department of Human Services, approximately 20,000 households could see an average SNAP cut of $95 per month if the cuts were implemented.

The Gillibrand amendment was paid for by reducing the subsidies that the Federal Government pays the crop insurance companies for administration and operating expenses and lowering their guaranteed rate of return from their current level of 14 percent to 12 percent. That is certainly a reasonable rate of return in this economy.

I was very disappointed that this amendment was not agreed to as this proposed cut of $4.5 billion starts us down the wrong path in future farm bill negotiations with the House, which is expected to have even deeper SNAP cuts in their bill.

Another provision I am concerned could negatively impact Rhode Island is the change in the definition of rural that could decrease the eligibility for Rhode Island communities to be able to apply for loans and grants under Rural Development programs. I appreciate Chairman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts working with Members from affected States to include in the managers' package a 3-year grandfathering of existing communities and an important stipulation that thereafter communities shall remain eligible unless ruled otherwise by the Secretary of Agriculture. However, the change in the definition does not completely remove the uncertainty for Rhode Island rural communities to be eligible in the future as they look to make needed improvements to their water and waste disposal systems or community facilities.

We need to help out the small farmers and businesses in this country, not continue to help the large, wealthy farmers. And we certainly should not pay for expansive farm programs by placing additional burdens on those who are struggling to make ends meet.

It is for these reasons that I am unable to support this bill in its current form. While I fear the bill will only get worse as negotiations begin with the House, I certainly hope the matters that I have raised can be addressed during that process.

Mr. President, 1972 was a watershed year for expanding educational opportunities in this country.

The Education Amendments of 1972 included title IX--now known as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act--guaranteeing educational opportunities for women and girls in federally supported educational institutions.

But 1972 also saw, within the Education Amendments, the creation of the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant. Today we know it as the Pell Grant. It was named in honor and in recognition of the extraordinary vision and service of my colleague, my predecessor from Rhode Island, Claiborne Pell. He authored this provision.

Forty years later, we can see how these two key changes to our educational laws have transformed our Nation and transformed the aspirations of millions of Americans.

It is also a good time to reflect on the challenges that remain and to renew our commitment to fulfilling the promise of opportunity represented in the Education Amendments of 1972.

Senator Pell's vision was that no student with the talent, drive, and desire should be denied the opportunity for a post-secondary education solely because of a lack of financial resources. Pell grants have opened the doors to a college education for millions of Americans.

In the 1973-1974 academic year--the first year students received grants--176,000 Pell grants were awarded. In the school year that began in the fall of 2010, that number grew to over 9.6 million.

Pell grants constitute approximately 23 percent of all Federal student aid, which includes grants, loans, and work study programs.

The Pell grant is the cornerstone of our Federal student aid programs. For needy students, it is the foundation for making college affordable. Unfortunately, reduced State support for higher education and rising college costs have eroded that foundation.

In 1976, the maximum Pell grant was $1,400, which was enough to cover 72 percent of the cost of attendance at a public 4-year college. In 2010, the maximum Pell Grant was $5,550, which was only enough to cover 34 percent of the cost of attendance at a public 4-year college.

We have seen an erosion of the buying power of the Pell grant. If we were matching the effort that he initiated in the 1970s, we would be providing more opportunities and more support for college students across this Nation.

Senator Pell understood that grant aid was critical for low-income students and families. The goal was to minimize the need for loans. Frankly, back in the 1970s, most young people with a Pell grant-- working through the summer, and working the extra hours they had to during the academic year--could pay their way through school, leave school without huge debt.

Today, regrettably, there are students graduating from school with $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 worth of debt because the Pell grants have not kept up, because college costs have accelerated, and because they have been forced to borrow. Today, low-income students and middle- income students rely heavily on student loans to pay for college.

And we are seeing another burden; and, frankly, this ripples throughout our economy. In the 1970s and 1980s, if you left college owing a few thousand dollars, you could pay that off very quickly. So by your late twenties, you were ready to settle down, to buy the house. Today, we have a generation of students who are struggling with debt that might take them 10 or more years to pay off. Effectively, they cannot begin to buy the home, to settle down, to do the things that are so important to our overall economy.

Unless we are able to come to an agreement over the next several days, we also face the prospect of seeing the rate on subsidized student loans double by July 1.

That would deal another blow to moderate- and low-income families. Leader Reid has proposed a very reasonable compromise. I hope that the Republicans will let that compromise go forward. I am hopeful my Republican colleagues can use this opportunity not only to continue to keep the lending rate low for Stafford loans but renew our own pledge on the Pell grant.

It would be ironic to see, on the 40th anniversary of the Pell grant, a further undermining of the ability of middle- to low-income Americans to go to college. In fact, this should be an opportunity to do much more. Senator Pell's words ring as true today as when he spoke them in 1995, one of the last years of his tenure in the Senate.

In his words:

As I have stated on many occasions, few things in life are

more important than the education of our children. They are

the living legacy that we leave behind and their education

determines the future of the American Nation. . . .

He continued.

. . . Every day families are making decisions about sending

their children to college. Certainly one of, if not the major

obstacle they face is how to pay for college. The loan is

their last resort. It provides the extra but necessary money

they must have after exhausting their own resources and

obtaining any grants for which their children might be

eligible. Increasing the amount that children owe after

graduation may well place the dream of a college education

beyond their reach. That, to my mind, would be a tragedy of

truly immense proportions. . . .

Senator Pell was right. Increasing student debt, especially during these difficult economic times, would be a tragedy for students, their families, and our Nation. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on our side of the aisle, all my colleagues, to work together to prevent an increase in the student loan interest rate from doubling on July 1.

That would, indeed, be a fitting tribute to Senator Pell on the 40th anniversary of the Pell grant.

Madam President, we are running out of time. The interest rate on subsidized student loans is set to double in just over 2 weeks. This will hit middle-class families hard at a time when they are dealing with the devastating effects of the most severe recession that we have witnessed in our lifetime.

Earlier this week the Federal Reserve reported additional sobering news. Between 2007 and 2010, median family wealth declined by nearly 40 percent. Median family income declined by nearly 8 percent, and the share of families with education-related debt rose from 15.2 percent to 19.2 percent.

This is no time to increase the interest rate on need-based student loans on the more than 7,000 moderate and low-income students who rely on them to go to college. What we have seen is a middle-class that in terms of wealth and income has been shrinking dramatically. Ironically--perhaps not ironically--the very wealthy have seen income and wealth increase. However, for the vast majority of Americans, they have seen their economic position deteriorate.

Closely allied with economic opportunity and the idea of making your way in this country is the necessity to go on to higher education. We have been preaching that. That is what our parents told us, go on to college. They said, when you go to college, you will be prepared to go into the workforce, increase your family income, contribute more to your country. Yet now we see a situation where not only is there a compression in middle-income wealth and income, there is also a staggering amount of student debt. It is almost $1 trillion. In fact, I heard reports suggesting that it eclipsed credit card debt in terms of what households in America are holding.

There is a generation of college students who have graduated and are struggling with this debt. The worst thing we can do now is double the interest rate on those who need more loans to finish their school and put an even greater burden on them and their family as they go forward.

We need to pass this legislation that will prevent the doubling of interest on student loans, and we need to do it before July 1. We are looking at a period of time when interest rates are very low. The Federal Reserve is charging financial institutions somewhere around 1 percent or less to borrow money, and yet we are going to students and saying, the interest rate used to be 3.4 percent, now it will be 6.8 percent. That seems not only incongruous but incomprehensible, that we will allow the interest rate to double, particularly in this environment.

Students' families can't afford this increase. They are stretched too thin already. Every statistic--forget the statistics. Talk to people back home in New Hampshire or Rhode Island or New Jersey, and they will tell you it is tough. There are children who are moving back in with their families because they are struggling to find a good job so they can pay their student debt and get by. This is not the time to double the interest rate on these loans.

It is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of the future of this country. It is an issue of avoiding innumerable personal tragedies. We were just on a conference call when a woman called in and said she is involved with many students who have graduated in the last few years and they are literally at their wit's end that they can't pay their debts. They don't have jobs that will give them the chance to move on. They are saddled with debt. How will they even begin to think of starting a family and buying a home? That was something my generation sort of took for granted in their mid twenties. We have to deal with this issue. This is the first step.

According to Georgetown University Center on Education Workforce, over 60 percent of jobs will require some postsecondary education by 2018. No longer is higher education some nice thing to do, it has become a necessity to get jobs that will provide for a family. Yet in 2010 only 38.3 percent of working-age adults have a 2-year or 4-year degree. So we know there is a gap already. We have 40 percent of people with a postsecondary education, and experts are telling us we will need 60 percent by 2018, and that is just 6 years away. And we are proposing to make it harder to pay for college? Again, it does not make any sense.

That is why last January, working with my colleague Joe Courtney in the House of Representatives, we introduced the Student Loan Affordability Act. We saw this coming. We knew we had to prevent this increase. Initially the response from our colleagues on the other side was, no way. In fact, they voted for two budgets that assumed the interest rate would double, therefore giving more resources for tax cuts and other preferences that certainly won't be as effective to help the middle class as giving a youngster a chance to go to college. But we continued to push. With the President and students and families and student organizations across the country, I think we have made some progress. We have seen at least a change in rhetoric.

Governor Romney said he was in favor of keeping the rates low. There has been no specifications on how to do this or urging on how to do this, but at least conceptually there seems to be agreement on that one point. The Republican leaders then followed suit saying, yes, we have to keep this interest rate from doubling. But we have not seen the actions to match these words.

They initially made a proposal to keep the interest rates low by going after preventive health care, and that is a nonstarter. I hope we all understand that, one, if we are going to improve the quality of health care in this country, we have to emphasize preventive care. By the way, if we are going to bend that proverbial cost curve, we better start to do more prevention than treatment because it is a lot more cost effective to prevent than treat disease.

Then they proposed another offset that would take resources from low- and middle-income families through various programs, taking from one pocket of a low- and middle-income family and giving it to them in the education pocket. That didn't work.

They continued to resist a proposal we made to pay for it because we do understand in this environment we have to be fiscally responsible. We proposed to close one of the most egregious loopholes in the Tax Code. There is a provision that allows high-paid lobbyists, high-paid lawyers, high-paid consultants to avoid their payroll taxes, Medicare taxes, and other taxes by forming a subchapter S corporation. At the end of the year they give themselves a dividend, which is not wages subject to these taxes, and is actually

treated at a very preferential tax rate. This is such an outrageous loophole that it was condemned by Bob Novak, late conservative columnist. It was condemned by the Wall Street Journal. It was condemned by everyone, but it was not something they could accept.

Well, we have moved forward. We have put a new offer on the table, led by Leader Harry Reid, and that would effectively help with respect to pension liabilities. First, it would give employers more predictability in terms of their contribution by allowing them to smooth out the interest rate which they assume in their contributions to the fund.

If you are trying to fund a pension liability over many years, you have to put in principal, but then you have to assume an interest rate to see if that principal will grow to an adequate amount. So the present law looks back about 2 years, and this is a remarkably low interest rate environment. So with low interest rates, they have to put more principal in. This way they could look much farther back, smooth it out, and take a more realistic interest rate that will reflect not just the last 2 years, which one would argue is very exceptional in terms of interest rates, but look at something that is more representative of the 25 or so years that they must provide for in their pension fund. In fact, this is a provision that employers think is very important to them.

The other side is to provide an increase of premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the insurance fund for defined benefit pension plans. Too often today the PBGC has to step in where companies go bankrupt and their pension funds are not adequate to pay for even part of the bona fide liabilities that they owe to workers, many of whom spent years in their employ and are depending on their pension.

This is a very balanced approach. It is an approach in the past that has had bipartisan support. I hope we are reaching a point now where we can come together. This is an incredibly difficult issue for families across this country.

I have heard pleas from Rhode Island families to fix this. I received letters and calls. One of them came in and said:

Please continue to fight for keeping the interest rate of

Stafford loans down to 3.4 percent. It is difficult enough to

pay for college. With unemployment so high for recent

college graduates, our financial future seems bleak. My

parents and I have taken loans to pay for my and my

sister's tuition. We are from a middle class family. We

appreciate your support and help with this issue.

Those words are more eloquent than mine.

Let's just get this done. We have no time to waste. July 1 is almost upon us. We have 2 weeks. Let's come together. Let's help people across this country and help our country.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am pleased that last night, my amendment, No. 2126, which would ensure that there are no future delays on the

implementation of new sunscreen labeling and testing standards, was adopted as part of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act.

Because sunscreens have been considered a cosmetic, they have largely avoided government oversight and the FDA hasn't changed its recommendations for sunscreen standards in over 30 years.

However, last June, after years of prodding by our former colleague Senator Dodd, me, and others, the FDA finally acted.

The agency finalized comprehensive new sunscreen regulations that were scheduled to go into effect on June 18, just a few weeks from now and in time for summer. Indeed, this was considered a victory for families across the country that spend more time outdoors and under the sun's harmful UVA and UVB rays during the summer months.

But just 2 weeks ago, the FDA announced it is now giving the industry an extra 6 months to make changes, meaning the standards will take effect in mid-December instead of this summer.

For too long the FDA has allowed manufacturers to get away with inaccurate claims about sun protection. My amendment will protect against any future delays and ensure the new sunscreen safety and labeling standards go into effect no later than the end of this year.

I am pleased that the Environmental Working Group supports this amendment, and the Consumer Health Care Products Association, which represents sunscreen manufacturers, has agreed to the amendment's inclusion in this bill. Finally, the Congressional Budget Office has informed me that my amendment would not result in any additional cost to the Federal government.

I thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Enzi for reviewing this amendment and including it in this FDA reauthorization bill.

Madam President, as Senator Harkin pointed out, the Republican proposal goes right to the heart of prevention, and that will have two effects. It will deny critical services to families all across this country, and it will do something else--it will deny us the chance to bend that proverbial cost curve. If we do not control those costs, we will be in a fiscal disaster. The proposal they are making does not make sense. We have proposed to close a tax loophole that has been described by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration as a multibillion-dollar employment tax shelter.

We have restricted it to the people who are receiving over $200,000 a year. This is not small business men and women. This is not the corner hardware store. These are lobbyists. These are lawyers who have craftily used subchapter S corporations to avoid paying payroll taxes.

This loophole has been criticized on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. This is no ``just raise taxes.'' This is trying to find a loophole which has been criticized by the right as well as the left to pay for and ensure that we do not double the interest rate on students. I cannot think of a clearer choice: Reject the Republican proposal; accept our proposal; do not allow the subsidized student loan interest rate to rise on July 1.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize Mr. James A. Hanlon, who is retiring this month after nearly 40 years of Federal service at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Jim has spent his long and distinguished career at EPA focusing on water quality issues and helping States and communities comply with Federal clean water requirements. He began his career at EPA as a staff engineer in September 1972, 1 month prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act, and has served in a number of senior positions within the Office of Water and Office of Research and Development.

Although he has many accomplishments, I want to particularly acknowledge Jim's role in managing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program, a program that has been so important to my home State of Rhode Island.

Jim was there at the program's inception, working for several years to design and lead the implementation of the program after it was first created by Congress in 1987. A decade ago, he was appointed Director of the Office of Wastewater Management, where he has continued to manage the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program and to oversee EPA's broader wastewater regulatory portfolio. Thanks in large part to his leadership, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program has successfully provided more than $90 billion nationwide to date to fund critical

water infrastructure improvements through Federal grants and contributions from State matching funds and leveraging.

For the past several years, Jim has also served as an important resource to the Senate Committee on Appropriations on wastewater policy issues. I am particularly grateful for the assistance he provided to implement the critical $4 billion investment in wastewater projects included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. With Jim's guidance, EPA and the States worked to get an unprecedented 1,870 clean water projects under contract within a year of the law's passage, including ten in my home State. His experience and guidance will be missed.

I congratulate Jim on a job well done. He leaves a proud and enduring legacy of public service.

I note the majority leader has appeared on the floor and I believe he has a procedural motion. I yield to him.

Order of Procedure

I would be happy to.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, which is pending before the Senate this week.

This legislation will give the FDA, through five agreements made between the agency and industry, the resources to approve additional drugs and devices every year for their safe and effective use. Without these agreements, the FDA, starting in October, would lack these resources which are necessary to approve new drugs and devices, and they would also lack resources to monitor the safety and efficacy of those drugs already on the market. This would result in a reversal of decades of work modernizing our drug and device approval and safety programs.

I am particularly pleased that for the first time, the generic pharmaceutical industry will provide the agency with $1.5 billion over 5 years for faster product reviews. In fact, the essence of the legislation is that the industry is actually providing resources for the monitoring and for the approval of drugs. Getting generic drugs onto the market sooner will help lower costs for individuals and families as well as for the Federal and State governments.

This measure would also significantly improve FDA's regulatory authority, including its ability to help prevent drug shortages and to partner with the private sector to develop new medications to treat life-threatening diseases that have become resistant to antibiotics, which is a very important measure included within this legislation.

I wish to recognize especially Chairman Harkin and Senator Enzi for their very thoughtful, very deliberative, and extremely important work. They have represented through their committee work the model of what we should be doing here collaboratively and on a bipartisan basis to advance important measures for the American people. Both of them deserve great accolades for their work today. I hope we can follow through and bring their work to conclusion.

I wish to particularly thank both of them, Chairman Harkin and Senator Enzi, for including provisions pertaining to pediatric drugs and devices that I authored along with my colleagues Senator Alexander, Senator Murray, and Senator Roberts, another bipartisan effort to improve the health of children throughout this country.

Until 1997--15 years ago--80 percent of drugs were used off-label to treat children. Doctors were treating children without fully understanding the appropriate dosage requirements or the potential for any dangerous side effects. This frustrated pediatricians and angered many families, but those sentiments were largely ignored by the industry until Congress stepped in.

With the passage of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act in 1997 and the Pediatric Research Equity Act in 2003, 427 drugs have been relabeled with important pediatric information. Now 46 percent, rather than 80 percent, of drugs are being used off-label in children, but that number is still too high. The legislation before the Senate makes critical improvements to these laws so we can further lower this percentage. It would make these two acts--BPCA and PREA--permanent, like the laws that govern the approval of drugs for adults. It would also provide the certainty that the pharmaceutical companies believe is necessary to continue to wisely invest in the appropriate use of drugs in children.

The legislation will also help ensure pediatric studies are planned earlier in the drug development process and completed sooner. Currently, a disappointing 78 percent of studies that were scheduled to be completed by September 2007 are either late or were submitted late. While Congress, the FDA, advocates, and the industry agree that a pediatric study should not hold up the approval for a drug for use in adults, drug companies should not be allowed to get away with submitting unrealistic study plans to the FDA for approval or failing to complete a required study once they are profiting from these drugs on the market.

The legislation that is before us would also require pharmaceutical companies to work with the FDA early in the process of developing these drugs to create a reasonable and sensible plan for studying the products in children. It would also, for the first time, provide FDA with an enforcement tool that will deter companies from neglecting their obligation to complete these studies on time.

Our bill also responds to the need for pediatric medical devices--not just pharmaceuticals, but devices--in children, which can lag 5 to 10 years behind those manufactured for adults. The pediatric profit allowance for Humanitarian Use Devices has proven to be a very effective incentive. Three new devices have been approved for their use in children in the last 3 years. This is an incredible increase as a result of this incentive.

This policy has shown much promise and I am pleased to see it continue in this bill, along with the Pediatric Device Consortia Grant Program, which has assisted the development of 135 proposed pediatric medical devices in just over 2 years.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act would also extend this Humanitarian Use Device incentive to manufacturers of devices for use in adults with rare conditions. While it is my hope this policy is equally effective in spurring developmental devices for use in adults as it is for children, I am concerned that it could impact the development and the marketing of devices for use in children. I plan to monitor this policy closely should it become law, but I have full expectations that both noble objectives can be achieved.

There are some children, however, who do not receive the full benefits of BPCA and PREA.

I am pleased the Senate bill begins to address this problem for pediatric cancer patients and children with other rare diseases. It calls on the FDA to hold a public meeting to discuss ways to encourage the development of new treatments for this population. Indeed, for some pediatric cancers, the treatment has not changed in many decades. For other rare diseases, an effective treatment has yet to be found. I look forward to receiving a recommendation that might stem from this important meeting, as well as working with my colleagues to respond to their needs with reasonable and sensible policy.

I am truly pleased these pediatric provisions have drawn the support of 24 organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, also including the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America. I think this stakeholder support is very important not only to the ultimate passage of the legislation, but for its effective implementation.

There is another provision I would like to talk about; that is, this bill contains provisions which would require the FDA to decide whether to update the labeling requirements for tanning beds.

Every day 2 million Americans visit a tanning salon. Seventy percent of these are women. According to the World Health Organization, the risk of deadly melanoma increases by 75 percent when the use of tanning devices begins before the age of 30.

So this is a particular concern with young women beginning to use-- and younger men--beginning to use these tanning devices. Yet the warning labels on tanning beds have not been updated in over three decades and are often placed far from view.

In 2007 my colleague, Senator Isakson of Georgia, joined me in requiring the FDA to study the labeling standards for tanning beds and make recommendations about how these standards could be improved. In its report, the FDA found that tanning bed labels could be clarified and located in a more prominent location. But the agency has yet to act. It is my hope the FDA will heed its own advice and update the labeling requirements for tanning beds.

Similar to the outdated labeling requirements for tanning beds, sunscreen testing and labeling standards have also been over three decades in the making--three decades. Last year I was pleased when the FDA finally took action. However, just last week the agency announced it would be extending the implementation of these new standards by 6 months, until December. Consumers will have to go another summer without knowing whether they are truly protected from the Sun's harmful UVA and UVB rays.

I have filed an amendment to make sure there are no future delays. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this amendment is accepted as part of the final FDA legislation which I hope is passed very quickly by the Senate.

I again want to thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Enzi for their extraordinarily effective and collaborative work on the Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act, which is included in this bill.

Student Loan Interest Rates

Just for a moment, let me raise another pending issue which is of critical importance. In 40 days, as I think many of us recognize, student borrowing rates for college will double unless we act. We have seen both sides of the aisle--colleagues from both sides--come down and say we cannot let this happen. Well, we cannot let it happen. That means we have to take action to prevent the doubling of interest rates on Stafford loans.

Unfortunately, last week we had a series of budget votes, which most of my Republican colleagues supported, which would have, if they had passed, mandated the doubling of the student loan interest rate. So I think we have to move away from this debate and actually pass legislation which would prevent the doubling of student loans by July 1. I hope we can do it promptly, certainly before July 1.

Also, I hope we find an effective offset. What the Republicans have suggested is using the Prevention Fund. The President made it clear he would veto the legislation if it included that offset. Also, what should be clear that using resources to prevent disease is not only helpful to the American public, but it is also probably one of the most practical ways we are going to be able to begin to bend that very important cost curve going forward.

This Prevention Fund is going to help everyone, but it is going to particularly help middle-income families who are struggling with medical bills, who are struggling to find insurance, the same families who are struggling to pay the cost of college for their children. It makes no sense to me to take from one program that will largely

benefit working families to pay for another program that will benefit working families.

We have an offset which is an egregious tax loophole that allows lobbyists, financiers, et cetera, to create subchapter S corporations to essentially avoid their payroll and Medicare taxes. I think that is an appropriate way to pay for this support for students' education. If there are other ways beyond the prevention fund, I certainly am happy to listen to them. If there are other principled ways to avoid doubling the interest rate for student loans, let's talk about them. Let's get them on the Senate floor and let's debate them.

I yield the floor

Madam President, today I congratulate the Salve Regina University men's rugby team for winning the 2012 National Small College Rugby Organization's Division III National Championship on April 29, 2012, in Glendale, CO.

The Salve Regina Seahawks, ranked number one by the National Small College Rugby Organization, were undefeated this season with a record of 11 0. The team earned a spot in the national semifinals when it defeated Tufts University on November 13, 2011, in the New England Championship and then went on to defeat Molloy College on November 19, 2011, in the Northeast Region Championship.

Reestablished in 2007, the Salve Regina Seahawks men's rugby team has appeared in the final four of the National Small College Rugby Organization's Division III national tournament three times in the past five years. The Seahawks' 21 15 victory over the California Maritime Academy Keelhaulers in the championship match was the first national championship victory for Salve Regina University in any sport.

I am especially pleased and proud to share that the members of the Salve Regina Seahawks men's rugby team demonstrated great sportsmanship and represented both their school and the State of Rhode Island with distinction.

I would like to recognize the Seahawks head coach Michael Martin and his assistant U.S. Air Force Colonel Dan Lockert; team president Richard Casey; captains Paul Schacter and Jesse DiTullio; and members Andrew Baik, Jeffrey Bouley, Patrick Brown, Chris Buckman, Michael Burlingame, Brian Cronin, Christopher Dieselman, Matt Dougenik, Zachary Faiella, Brian Goodridge, James Horn, Martin Kelliher, Alfred Knapp, John Kuchac, Shane Lange, Robert LaRiviere-Tougas, Stephen McEnery, Glen Miles, Zackary Moreau, Daniel Murphy, Troy Ochoa, Joshua Patterson, Nicholas Patti, Nicholas Pesce, Anthony Pesce, Russell Petrucci, Jacob Piazza, Nicholas Pinto, Evan Raiff, Rylan Richard, Nathan Rose, Kyle Russell, Justin Ryel, Carlos Santos, David Seguin, Colby Sherman, Ryan Shilalis, Connor Taub, Grant Thiem, Quinn Turner, Patrick Wendt, and Joseph Zoeller.

I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Salve Regina's president Sister Jane Gerety, RSM, chancellor Sister M. Therese Antone, RSM, and athletic director Colin Sullivan. Once again, congratulations to the members of the Salve Regina Seahawks men's rugby team on this outstanding achievement and well-deserved championship.

Mr. President, I am joined by my colleague, Senator Brown of Ohio. We are extraordinarily apprehensive that in 45 days the interest rate on subsidized student loans will double in the United States. Young people and middle-aged people who are struggling to educate themselves and reeducate themselves will be faced with a tremendous increase in the cost of college and postsecondary education. The interest rate will go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This is particularly ironic when the Federal Reserve routinely lends to large banking institutions huge sums of money at less than 1 percent. So this is a huge impact on middle-income Americans who are struggling with so many challenges: housing costs, employment problems--the whole plethora of issues they face.

It is estimated that more than 7 million students, including 43,000 in Rhode Island, will suffer because of this doubling that will take place. A lot of our colleagues have said: Of course we don't want to see this happen. I thought it was terribly ironic yesterday that they, with very few exceptions, voted consistently for budgets that would, in fact, double the student interest rate. In fact, one of the budgets they voted for previously, the Ryan budget from the House, would also eliminate the in-school interest subsidies for certain loans. So there is this incongruity between, oh, we are all for keeping interest rate low for students, but, of course, in our budget we double it.

There is another problem, and it has been reported in so many different national and local newspapers. There is a huge problem with student debt. We have reached the $1 trillion mark in student debt. This could be the next big, huge bubble we face financially. It certainly impairs the ability of young men and women when they graduate to go and take the job they want, to buy the house they want, because they are struggling with huge debts, and we are adding to that by doubling the interest rate.

This is a policy issue, but it is also an intensely personal issue. I received letters from many constituents about the potential impact, and I know Senator Brown from Ohio has as well. I wonder if the Senator has some comments at this point.

Mr. President, if I could reclaim my time, the Senator has been a tremendous leader on this issue because he leads from the front. He is in Ohio. He is talking to students and families. He understands the personal ramifications that are involved.

Let there be no mistake. This is a program that benefits middle and lower middle-income Americans. Nearly 60 percent of the dependent students who qualify for subsidized loans come from families with incomes of less than $60,000. This is not a perk for the superwealthy. Nearly 70 percent of independent students--that is the term of art for those adults or older people who may have some previous training but they have to go back to the community college to get a certificate and are trying to transition from a job that was shipped overseas to one they think they can get here.

Nearly 70 percent of independent students borrowing these loans have incomes of less than $30,000 a year. So we are talking about people who cannot afford a doubling of the interest rate.

But there is another issue too. It is not just, as Senator Brown pointed out, to fulfill legitimate and, in fact, admirable personal ambitions of establishing oneself in a community by buying a home or raising a family; this is about our future, our productivity as a nation, our ability to compete in an incredibly difficult international, global economy.

We have looked at the statistics at universities such as Georgetown University. Their Center for Education and the Workforce said over 60 percent of the jobs by 2018--a few years from now--will require some postsecondary education--60 percent. But in 2010, only 38 percent, roughly, of working adults held a 2-year or 4-year degree. So we have this gap, a 20-percentage point gap, between the skills we need through postsecondary education and the skills we have. We hear not just from analytical papers that are done by think tanks; we hear it every time we go back to either Ohio or Rhode Island because employers come up to us and say: I have jobs to fill, but I can't find people with the skills, the training that I need to give them a job.

I am happy to yield.

I would be happy to, reclaiming my time. First, let me echo what Senator Brown said, how this is about being competitive. When he talked about the Pell grants, I have to reference my colleague and predecessor, Claiborne Pell, because he seized on the lesson of the GI Bill and said: Let's extend it broadly to college students. So Pell grants, Stafford loans, all of those vehicles were created. Frankly, I think that is not only the reason we have led the world and the Nation in creativity, but it is the reason America, as well as--and probably better than any other place in the world, was able to proliferate computers and technology, et cetera, because we have a literate, well- educated citizenry who first could invent these devices and then could use them properly. We are in danger, if we don't continue to support education, of losing our innovative edge and losing our capacity as a people to adopt innovation and technology and to continue to lead. For all of these reasons, our economic future is linked to continuing to support higher education.

There is another point I wish to make before I talk about the way we have proposed to pay for this; that is, there have been some on the other side who say the problem is that tuition is going out of sight, and we are contributing to those tuition hikes. Well, under the subsidized loan program, the maximum borrowing is $23,000. So this is not the driving force. Colleges have to recognize they have to rein in costs, but this is not the driving force. This is the way so many families are able to make it through college and make it into the economy and move up the economic ladder.

But what our colleagues have said is they are all for preventing this doubling. Of course, yesterday they voted consistently, with very few exceptions,

to double the interest on Stafford loans. So what they say and what they do sometimes are different.

But then they said the real dispute is how to pay for it. They want to pay for it by going after the money in the prevention fund, which is part of health care reform. But this prevention fund is absolutely critical. As Senator Brown indicated, people need diagnostic tests. They need to be able to go to a medical facility and get advice, assistance, and tests so they can avoid problems. That is not only sensible for the individual; that is the only way we are going to get a handle on the proliferation of costs in the health care sector.

One of the ironies of our current health care system, pending the, we hope, implementation of the affordable care act, is that we have millions and millions of Americans who have no real access to health care, no access to preventive care, no access to simple things such as cheap pharmaceuticals to control cholesterol until they get to be 65 years old. Then they go into the doctor's office, and they have Medicare. But their problems are so much more expensive.

I was speaking to ophthalmologists in my office, and they said: You are absolutely right. We see people come in for the first time with health care under Medicare who have serious problems such as diabetes and glaucoma. If we had seen them 10 years ago--if a physician had treated them--through a prescription or another very inexpensive therapy, they could have avoided these tremendous costs. That is what they are going after.

By the way, that is, to me, another middle-class program because, frankly, if one is well off and well situated financially, one will get all the preventive care one needs. It is those people who are struggling in the middle class and moving into the middle class who need this prevention fund.

So what we have proposed--is not to attack another benefit, or a smart, wise, cost-effective approach to health care that would benefit middle-income Americans--instead we are going after a tax dodge, plain and simple. This is a tax dodge that has been called out by the Government Accountability Office as something that has been used to avoid over $23 billion in taxes on wages in 2003 and 2004--a huge gulf.

In 2005, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration called this loophole a ``multibillion employment tax shelter.''

Let me tell my colleagues how it works. An individual who is a professional--a lawyer, an accountant, a consultant, a lobbyist--and the skills of that individual represent what he or she does as a lawyer, an accountant, et cetera. They are personal skills. But instead of being paid by an employer directly, they substitute a subchapter S corporation so they are now an employee of the corporation. They take a minimum a salary, if you will, from the corporation, but then at the end of the year, the corporation gives the individual the surplus as a dividend, which is taxed much cheaper, so the person can avoid payroll taxes. It is legal, but it is a tax dodge. It is a loophole.

This loophole is so egregious that conservative columnist Bob Novak called it out, Sean Hannity of Fox News called it out, and the Wall Street Journal called it out saying it is a simple way to avoid paying payroll taxes, Medicare taxes, as well as other employment taxes.

Closing this loophole is sound policy. We should do this anyway. But when we do it in conjunction with this student lending, we actually are able to help struggling families and close an egregious loophole.

What some of our opponents have suggested is that this is just another tax increase. We have been very careful. We restrict these to professional endeavors. We also restrict the impact to those making over $200,000 a year. So this is not targeted at the mom-and-pop stores. This is not targeted at the local laundry or the local dry goods store or the local hardware store that is organized as a subchapter S. In fact, Politifact, one of the agencies that does independent analyses of various claims, clearly rejected this characterization as a tax increase on the mom-and-pop stores and on the small business companies and the job generators as false. So we have not only a sensible, but a compelling way to pay for this.

So everyone agrees we can't let this happen on July 1. We have an egregious loophole that should be closed anyway to pay for it, and I suggest we move on. Just, procedurally, let's bring this to a vote. If they want to put up the prevention fund for a vote, if they want to put up any other means to pay for it, fine.

Let's have our vote, and let's avoid the doubling of student loan interest rates on July 1.

I know the Senator from Ohio has some comments.

Reclaiming my time, again, let me thank the Senator from Ohio for his leadership, for his passion, for his commitment. We are hearing from the other side that this is just about how to pay for this necessary legislation to prevent the doubling of the interest rate. We have offered a compelling way to pay for it in terms of closing this egregious loophole. They have, as Senator Brown indicated, once again, put on the chopping block, if you will, preventive services for families across this country and potentially the most sensible way to begin to reduce our health care costs over time.

They have--when they have wanted to--completely ignored paying for things such as tax cuts. We have seen that. Just recently the House passed the so-called Small Business Tax Cut Act with no offsets. So to literally hold these students hostage to their unwillingness to bring the bill to the floor, to debate it vigorously--to vote on their proposal to pay for it and to vote on our proposal to pay for it--is, I think, unfortunate, if not unconscionable.

We have 45 days left.

With that, I yield the floor.