Floor Statements

Would the Senator yield?

I thank the good Senator for working in such a bipartisan manner. I think this truly is a bipartisan bill.

This bill has been described as belonging to one party or the other, and that is wrong. Senator Burr, Senator Alexander, Senator Coburn, Senator King, Senator Carper, and I sat down and looked at how we could fix something. We looked at it from the standpoint that this deadline has hit. One year ago we extended it. They said it was the political atmosphere and we had to extend it. We knew that year would come and, similar to everything else that has happened here for the last 2 or 3 years, nothing gets done. We just said: Enough is enough. It has to be fixed, and if we want to fix it, to understand the program, we have to look at the whole program.

I think now they are making accusations that students are paying profits so we can pay down the debt. Whether there is profit built in depends on the accounting procedures used by our Federal Government. It was built in. You can blame whomever you want to blame, but it is built into it. We have to deal with the facts in front of us.

What I would ask the Senator, all of us have agreed in a bipartisan manner that no profit will be made on the backs of students, what we can determine through the bill we are working on, right?

So we have all come to that agreement--Democrats and Republicans--no profit in debt reduction. It should go to lowering the rate.

We agreed on that. We have agreed on a long-term fix, 10 years, rather than kicking it down the road another year, knowing another year will come and go and we are probably going to be standing here debating. That is the conclusion we have come to, which is different than what the House sent us. I applaud the Senator for working with us to put in a fixed rate.

So if it is at 3.66 this year and I am able to qualify and I am subsidized at $3,500 of a subsidized loan the taxpayer will be paying, that 3.66 is fixed for the full life of the loan. We agreed on that, correct?

So when they say it is a Republican bill or a Democratic bill, that is erroneous. That is not fair. This is truly a bipartisan effort, and we are working with all of our colleagues in my caucus--and I know the Senator is in his caucus--to understand that if I have a subsidized Stafford loan, that means the Federal Government--the taxpayers of this country--will pay my interest while I am in school, correct?

At the end of that, then I pick up whatever interest rate has accumulated while I was in school, and I take it from that day forward.

What I think a lot of our colleagues don't understand, I can't make it just on that $3,500. I have to borrow more money. So now, if I go with my colleagues on the Democratic side, if I borrow more money, I have to borrow that at 6.8 percent.

We were able, in a bipartisan way, to bring that to 3.66 percent for all undergraduates, correct?

So the money I would have to borrow, even though I qualify because of my income for a subsidized loan, I don't have to pay the interest on an annual basis. So by bringing it down to one low rate, I am making much lower payments. So that is less obligation and less hardship on me as a college student to make that lower payment than it would be to make that higher payment.

We want to help the subsidized, very poor kids. I might be poor, but I can't make it on just what you give me because I am poor. I have to have a little more help. Then, on top of that, I want to go to graduate school after I get my college degree. So then I am at 6.8 again. Ours brings it down to 5.21, which is more savings, which I know the Senator agrees to.

If I may ask my colleague from Tennessee, right now we know we have a

consolidated cap at 8.25 percent. Let's say I graduate and I went to school during the high recession times. At the end, I have an 8.75- percent accumulative interest I owe. I can cap that and consolidate at 8.25, correct?

I think what they are referring to--and I might have misunderstood, but I think I am accurate on this. Everyone will take the loans for the longest period of time, and I just got out of school so I want the smallest payment. Four or five years out I have a better job. Instead of paying $150 a month, I can afford to pay $300 or $400.

There is no penalty for me to shorten that, as it would be in a conventional market. Is that how the Senator understands it?

To both of my friends, let me say that I graduate from college--no matter what the interest rates are, no matter what they might have been--I graduate and economic times are tough. I find a job that is not what I think my value is, but I find a job at $40,000-- $40,000. I am married now, and I have a child or two. Don't we have in our bill a protection which has been in place for a long time--both Democrats and Republicans have supported this protection--which is called income-based repayment? By law, I can only pay 15 percent of my disposable income. I think that breaks down to my payment can only be $142. Isn't that a subsidy too? Wouldn't we be subsidizing that to an extent? I am also understanding that if my economic condition does not improve and that is all I pay, by the end of 25 years it is exonerated. I pay nothing. I am done.

Let me say very quickly--and I will use $10 million hypothetically that is borrowed every year--$10 billion, $10 million, whatever you want to use--25 percent of that money goes to the subsidized, just 25 percent. I understand that it is close to about 40 percent of the students who participate in borrowing money, but the volume of money is about 25 percent, one-fourth of the money that is loaned out. So if we are keeping the rates low on one-fourth of the money, that means we artificially have much higher rates on three- fourths of the money students need to get an education.

What we are saying is that we are going to bring a larger majority of that down to the lowest rate. We think it is a good policy that we should be discussing and talking about. That is where we are. That is why we came up with the plan we did, but we reduced all the rates. The PLUS loans I think went from 7.9 to 6.21, yes, and then the graduate loans went from 6.8 to 5.21.

But if you do all of the undergraduate, it would go from 3.4 to 3.66, a quarter and a point--.26.

Right. Right.

That was the bipartisan agreement we had. I appreciate that very much. Let me say, here is the last 10 years. If we would use the last 10 years, with the bipartisan bill kicked in, this is what the students who basically are paying the higher rate now--6.8 percent frozen--would have been able to take advantage of, the lower rates. They never got a chance to take advantage of the lower rates. All we are assuming is that if rates go up in 3 or 4 years, they are going to be paying higher rates. We never assume the market--that is the reason why you fluctuate with the market on the 10-year T-bill. This would have happened with the 10-year T-bill. Look how much lower they would have been paying in the last 10 years.

I know we can all use figures any way we want to use them, but the bottom line is that it is either going to be market--it has always been that before. There have been caps that have been much higher, and we are trying to find something that is affordable, but the bottom line is, do we try to protect the lowest rate?

Most undergraduates have the hardest times. Once you get your undergraduate degree, you have a much higher percentage of making it. If you want to get a graduate degree and a higher Ph.D. degree, you have a much better chance.

The bottom line is that we want to keep the rates low so that when students go out they are not burdened with the highest payments. We have a lot of protections built in that a lot of times are misunderstood and are not explained properly, and I am glad we are having this colloquy.

Yes.

Would the Senator yield?

I am not sure how the Senator voted on the extension a year ago. I voted for the extension a year ago.

I don't intend to vote on the extension again because we have not fixed it. By voting on this extension, what we are voting on is 3.4 percent just for the subsidized, and everybody will be at 6.8 percent, and 7.9 percent for PLUS loans.

When my colleague is talking about that, the difference of savings between our bill--if we got a vote on our bill, which is a compromised, bipartisan bill, we would save close to $9 billion in

interest that students wouldn't have to pay. I believe we agree on that.

I think we are going to have a chance to vote on one bill, and that is about $2 billion. In West Virginia that is a lot of money in savings of $7 billion that students don't have to pay in interest, which is across the board for students who have subsidized and unsubsidized loans. That is the point we are trying to make, and we hope we get that through.

I know the Senator hopes, as I do, that we get a vote on this today.

I believe Senator Burr has the floor.

Was that for every student who was in college at that time no matter what their ranking or what service they had performed in the military or whether they had the GI bill?

Everybody in college during that period of time could borrow at the low rate of 2 percent with no interest at all?

Maybe Congress did a better job of getting its financial house in order than we have.

I have one question that I would like to ask in the spirit of a colloquy to my dear friend from Iowa. They are saying 1 year, and they are looking at the compromised, bipartisan bill we have worked on. In 3 or 4 years the rates may go up because market rates will change. If we are only looking at 1 year, is there anything prohibitive in our bill that we couldn't go back a year from now if we see a better solution? If we get an education bill, we can say: Hey, here is the grand bargain, which is better than what we thought we had.

Still yet, our bill saves $9 billion, and the bill my dear friends in my caucus support only saves $2 billion. If we only do it for 1 year, we help more people save more money, and then we can still rewrite another bill in 1 year. Are we able to do that?

If we look at it from year to year, we have 3.4 percent for the smallest group, 6.8 percent for everybody above that, and 7.9 percent for PLUS.

Under our bill, it is 3.66 percent for all undergraduates, and every rate comes down; correct?

So that is $9 billion versus $2 billion, and that is about as simple as I can make it.

I think what we are talking about also is that they are saying if it consolidates, it strings the payment out for the maximum of 30 years, which means they are paying a lot more back in interest; correct? That is the argument I have heard from different people. So that means, why would you have an automatic consolidation?

With that being said, I understand that with the government-run loan right now, there are no penalties for me. If I string it out to get the lowest payment for 30 years, and then I said I want to have 10 years, I can do that; correct? That is able to be done. So I can reduce that amount of time and amount of interest with my affordability to pay more.

Madam President, I wanted to speak in a little detail on another topic, and that is the direction we are going on the student loan crisis, I guess. It is a shame we have come to this. A year ago, I voted for the extension. We were told at that time that due to the political atmosphere, we had the big election year coming up, that we couldn't get into the details and fix it the way it maybe needed to be fixed and should have been fixed back then. So a lot of us went ahead and voted for the extension, and now we find ourselves in the same position this year as we were last year. There will be another election in 2014. So it seems as though we are always in an election cycle, and if we allow that to continue to direct what we do and how we do it, we would get little done here, which is what the public is getting frustrated with.

A few of us got together, myself, Senators Alexander, Carper, and King, and we decided maybe we could come together and work on something. There is no perfect fix for anything here, I have found, and this is complicated and confusing if you don't delve into it. So I started looking into it more this year than I had before.

I think a lot of our colleagues, and a lot of people in the country, believe the so-called ``doubling of the rates'' from 3.4 to 6.8 meant everybody's rates had doubled. First of all, there was just a small percentage of the loans we loaned out that were getting the advantage of the 3.4 if we extend it. Seventy-five percent of the loans--75 percent of the money out there--is at the higher rate of 6.8 or above.

I have tried to understand, the best I can, all the different aspects of the loans we have out there. We have the subsidized loans. Because of family income and participation someone is able to get a subsidized loan. What that means, if we break it down, is the first year you qualify for a subsidized loan you can borrow up to $3,500, and $3,500 in today's higher education world doesn't go very far. You are also allowed to borrow $2,000 of unsubsidized money, which means you would have been paying 3.4 percent on the $3,500 and 6.8 percent on the unsubsidized.

So as you can see, it is not all clear-cut. Then, in the second year, you can borrow $4,500 subsidized and $2,000 in unsubsidized; and then it goes to $5,500 and stays at $5,500 for the fourth year.

The thing that happens is the unsubsidized loans, if we are looking at the unsubsidized loans at 6.8 percent, they are staying. We have had some say it is better to leave it alone, do nothing. Let it go ahead and double at 6.8 and leave it where it is. We worked out a proposal along the lines of the President's proposal. Also, we had the so-called House Republican proposal.

Our proposal is much different. This is not a Republican or Democratic piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan piece. We looked at all aspects of what we have to deal with in today's market.

On July 1 the rates went up. If we are able to come to agreement this week or maybe the first of next week, we can retroactively bring those back so that when you go to school this fall you will know exactly what your rates will be. We came to a bipartisan agreement that those rates could be 3.66 percent, and that is for all undergraduates.

Now if you are getting a subsidized or unsubsidized loan, a 1-year extension goes from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Under our proposal, everything is at 3.66 percent. That will save about $9 billion this year in interest that students would be responsible for paying--$9 billion for the youth of this country trying to get a higher education. If we just do the 1-year extension, that is only a savings of $2 billion. So there is a $7 billion savings beyond what the 1-year extension would do. We are just dealing with the facts that we have in front of us.

So let's say you are going to a graduate unsubsidized Stafford loan, which many people in graduate school get. Right now, that is at 6.8 percent. Under our proposal, that goes to 5.21 percent.

If you have a PLUS loan--that is parents and graduate students--today you are paying 7.9 percent, and you have been paying 7.9 percent. Our bill takes that to 6.21 percent. You can see the savings.

Some might say, well, the interest rates will go up after 3 or 4 years, and then you will be at a higher rate. We put also, the same as in the law right now, an 8.25 percent cap. So if you borrow money this year at 3.66 percent, that is locked in for the life of the loan. That is what you pay for the money you borrow this year for the life of that loan. Now, next year it could be 4.5 percent. It could go up with inflation.

When I was in school, and later on, inflation kicked up to 16 or 17 percent. That is outrageous.

In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats have come to an agreement that we don't think the policy of this country should be that we should make a profit on the loans that students are receiving to educate themselves to have a better quality of life and opportunity. We have come to that agreement. That is not the bill we got from the House. They want to use profits to pay down debt.

Now, I understand there is a lot more that needs to be done on the profit end of it and how we get to the true cost. The Presiding Officer has been working hard on that, and I am willing to work with her. But the agreement we have in front of us today is that we are not going to make any profit that will go to debt reduction. If there is a so-called profit, it should go to reduce and give the lowest rate we could possibly offer. That is what we have agreed on. We agreed on fixing the rates for the life of the loan. That is not what came from the House.

So when I say it is a bipartisan bill, these are things we are agreeing on that make a better piece of legislation.

People might say: But 4 years from now it might go up higher than 6.9 percent. In the 3 or 4 years that we know we will have tremendous savings, there is a difference of $36 billion versus maybe $8 billion if you just keep extending 1 year at a time. A $2 billion savings here, a $9 billion savings here. It is not hard to do the math.

Then, talk about a comprehensive education bill, I pray to God that we can get a comprehensive education bill, but I am not sure the American public believes we are able to get any type of a consensus on any type of comprehensive bill.

When I first got here, they told me we were trying to get our financial house in order. Then we had the sequester coming at us. The sequester basically was a penalty we voted on, but no one ever thought we would let it get that Draconian, to the point we couldn't come to an agreement and we would have to have this type of a punishment put on ourselves. So we put a supercommittee together for the purpose of getting a superdeal so we could get our financial house in order. It wasn't that super. It didn't work.

So then the sequester kicked in and the Draconian cuts across the board. You don't run your life that way, your business that way, whether it is small or large. You don't cut everything. You have your priorities and necessities you have to maintain in your life on a daily basis. Then you have excesses you can do without. So you make adjustments and you pick and choose.

That is not working right now, and what is happening is people are suffering needlessly because we cannot come to an agreement to get our financial house in order, to find a budget that works for this country, to find a tax system that is fair and equitable that people believe in. We haven't been able to do that.

We are being told: Let's go ahead and extend the 3.4 percent for the smallest portion of the amount of loans that we loan out, and everyone else can pay the higher rate.

I am not willing to do that. I think we can do better. I think we are better than that--on both sides of the aisle. Chastising each other and saying one wants to raise rates and one is insensitive toward students, and it is a Republican or Democrat plan, doesn't fix anything around here. It hasn't since I have been here, and I don't think it is going to. It will if we put our country first. And we know one thing: By putting our country first, we put our students first.

Without educating the populous, we have nothing. We can't compete in the world of economics. We can't compete in the world of science and technology. We just can't.

The best investment we can make is in our youth. The best investment we can make is in education. We might buy a car and think that is a great investment. We might buy a piece of property or a house and think that is a great investment. The best investment we will ever make is in education. We want to make it as affordable and doable as humanly possible, and that is what we have worked on together, on a bipartisan basis. We are hoping we can find common ground.

We have talked about caps. The caps are inherently built in. Let's say you graduate, get a degree, and find a job that pays $40,000--which is not a lot in today's market for the money invested--and get married and have a child or two. With the system we have built in right now, you only pay 15 percent of your disposable income. That breaks down to about $142 a month that you will pay on your student loan to make it affordable. If you are not able to pay that off at the end of 25 years, it is exonerated and wiped out.

Pell grants. If a person is in need because of their income, they can get up to $5,645 a year free. Those are grants we give out, which are excellent, helping students who don't have an opportunity or chance, with any support from their family, to be able to get a higher education. We are doing an awful lot of things to help. The bottom line is that we have come to an agreement that it shouldn't be subsidized, there shouldn't be a profit made, and it should be affordable--and it has to run efficiently.

I think $36 billion in savings over 4 years is pretty substantial compared to us doing nothing. I also think those who say let the rates go up to 6.8 percent are misinformed. I don't think they have been told the facts or the truth.

What we are asking for is basically a level playing field, looking at what we can do that is positive, getting more groups to sit down and sincerely work toward what I think is going to be a good outcome and a good process.

Extending what we have doesn't work. Not being able to come together to make sure our loans are affordable is not acceptable. I think if we continue to strive to work toward finding a reasonable outcome, we will be able to succeed.

Tomorrow we will have a vote, and there will be more discussions about student loans. The bottom line is we want rates to come down for everybody. Every student in every category should have the benefit of the lower rates that are available to the public today.

Madam President, I yield the floor

Mr. President, if I may respond to my dear friend from Rhode Island for whom I have the utmost respect. We have a respectful difference as far as how to approach this problem and we are working through it. We really, truly, are working and we will work through it.

We had a charge a year ago to fix it, so we started working on that. The President in a timely fashion gave us a piece of legislation that had a longer term fix, 10 years. We took that and worked off that original proposal given to us by the administration, by the President, and we started working in a bipartisan manner to make this work.

With that being said, we looked at the 3.4 percent and I would say a majority of our Senate colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, did not understand that the 3.4 percent only affected those that were subsidized loans. That is the smallest amount of loans we have out there. I think the majority of our colleagues, the majority of the people, the majority of the press thought we fixed it at 3.4 percent for everybody who had a student loan. That was not the case.

We wanted to go back and make sure if we do something we do it for everybody, because the person who has income limits and qualified for the subsidized loan, the first year they get that loan it is $2,500; the second year it is $3,500; the third year it is $4,500; and the fourth year it is $5,500. That is the maximum they can borrow. So you know what. They borrow the nonsubsidized. Guess what they have been paying for the nonsubsidized: 6.8. Guess what students have been paying for what we call the PLUS loans. They have been paying 7.9. But we are not hearing anything about that.

Put it in perspective as dollars. If we have a 1-year extension, as my dear colleagues have suggested, to try to fix the problem again, that will be about a $2 billion savings of interest payments that would be put on the backs of students. That is a tremendous amount of money.

Guess what happens if we pass our bipartisan proposal. It saves $8.8 billion, and everybody participates. Even the subsidized loan for the student who struggled the hardest and needs most of the help, they get most of the help. Not only do they get help on their subsidized loan, but they get help on their unsubsidized loan. We have looked at everything possible. We have a piece of legislation which we think not only fixes but basically repairs a broken system.

When we look at where we are today and we look at sequestering--and I have been here not quite 3 years--I have watched us kick the can down the street to where my toe is hurting. We kicked this can so much, my toe is hurting, and it is starting to kick back.

We need to start giving the people of this great country the confidence that we can work in a functional and respectful way. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents need to come together and put our country first, put our students first, and stop playing politics.

We agreed--Democrats and Republicans--on this bipartisan bill that not $1 should go to debt reduction. We do not believe the students trying to get an education to better and improve their quality of life, their economic condition, and the economic condition of our great country should have to be burdened with reducing the debt of this Nation. They can do that by being productive citizens. We agreed on that. That was something that was not agreed on before because there were people who wanted the surpluses to go to debt reduction.

We took out the surpluses and reduced the rate as low as humanly possible. It has been scored. We are bringing rates down. If we look at a top rate of 7.9 percent, that is going to come to 6.21 percent if they have a PLUS loan. If a student has a graduate Stafford loan, that is going to go from 6.8 percent to 5.21 percent. All the undergraduates--if it is a subsidized loan or a nonsubsidized loan-- will go to 3.6 percent, and that is a tremendous savings. That is the $8.8 billion, and that is what we are asking for.

I respectfully--and I mean that--disagree with my colleagues who have signed on to a 1-year extension believing we are going to be able to come up with an agreement or a compromise that is better than what we have before us. We have worked this out with Senator Carper from Delaware, Senator King from Maine, myself from West Virginia, and Senator Alexander from Tennessee. Those are four former Governors. We knew we had to work together because we had to make things happen immediately. At the end of the year, everything had to balance out. Senator Burr and Senator Coburn also contributed, and they understand financing as well as anybody in this body.

I say to all the students who have loans right now: Don't worry. July 1 will come. We will come back on July 9 or 10, and it will be the first order of business we will ask to bring up. Both of our bills will be our first order of business.

I assure everyone that we will come up with a compromise we can work out that will give the relief the students--those who desire an education and want to better their lives will have that opportunity and be able to have stability and not have the increased rate passed on because we will make this retroactive.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an important amendment to S. 744, the immigration bill now before us. My amendment would cap compensation for private contractors employed for border security at $230,700 a year. That is the same cap we now have on nonelected civilian employees of the Federal Government.

I am offering this amendment because over the last couple of decades the United States has increasingly relied on private contractors to do the work that the men and women in our armed services used to do, and they are getting exorbitant salaries to do it--in some cases, up to $763,000 a year. That is almost twice the salary of the President of the United States, and it is almost four times the salary of the Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security. If we do nothing, that will soon rise to $951,000 a year.

With the war in Afghanistan winding down, defense contractors are looking for new opportunities, and border security is at the top of their list. The New York Times said that some of them will demonstrate military-grade surveillance equipment this summer in an effort to get homeland security contracts worth billions of dollars.

I urge that this amendment be adopted. It caps it at $230,000 across the board for all civilian employees.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, this week the State of West Virginia will celebrate the sesquicentennial of its birth--a brave and daring declaration of statehood that is unprecedented in American history.

West Virginia was born out of the fiery turmoil of the Civil War 150 years ago. It was founded by true patriots who were willing to risk their lives and fortunes in a united pursuit of justice and freedom for all.

To West Virginians, the names of Pierpont, Willey, and Boreman are nearly as familiar as Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin. Each of these men was a pivotal figure in our States's improbable journey to independence from Virginia and to our very own place in the Union.

But, of course, our forefathers could not have brought forth a new State conceived of liberty without the hand of Abraham Lincoln. It was Lincoln who issued the proclamation creating West Virginia and establishing our State's birthday as June 20, 1863. And characteristically with few words, the 16th President dismissed the arguments of the day that his proclamation was illegal. Lincoln wrote:

It is said that the admission of West Virginia is

secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession.

Well, if we call it by that name, there is a difference

between secession against the Constitution, and secession in

favor of the Constitution.

Indeed, the people of West Virginia had a choice of two different flags to follow during the Civil War. There was, as Francis Pierpont pointed out, ``no neutral ground.'' The choice, he said, was ``to stand by and live under the Constitution'' or support ``the military despotism'' of the Confederacy. We chose wisely. We chose the Stars and Stripes. We chose allegiance to the country for which it stands. We chose to live under a constitution that promised the constant pursuit of ``a more perfect union'' of States. And ever since that historic beginning, we the people of West Virginia have never failed to answer our country's call. No demand has been too great, no danger too daunting, and no trial too threatening.

The abundant natural resources of our State and the hard work and sacrifice of our people have made America stronger and safer. We mined the coal that fueled the Industrial Revolution. We powered the railroads across the North American continent and still today produce electricity for cities all across this country. We stoked the steel factories that armed our soldiers for battles all across the globe and built the warships that plowed the oceans of the world. And we have filled the ranks of our military forces in numbers far greater than should ever be expected of our little State.

Consider this: According to U.S. census data, West Virginia ranked first, second, or third in military casualty rates in every U.S. war of the 20th century--twice that of New York's and Connecticut's in Vietnam and more than 2\1/2\ times the rates of those two States in Korea. Today 13.8 percent of West Virginia's population is made up of veterans--the seventh highest percentage among all States. That is higher than the national average of 12.1 percent. That is higher than States with much larger populations, States such as Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, or Massachusetts. It is like I always say: West Virginia is one of the most patriotic States in the country.

The best steel comes from the hottest fires. We have all been told that. Well, the fires of the Civil War transformed West Virginia from a fragile hope to a well-tempered, steely reality, dedicated to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. But West Virginia is great because our people are great-- mountaineers who will always be free. We are tough, independent, inventive, and honest. Our character is shaped by the wilderness of our State, its rushing streams, its boundless blue skies, its divine forests, and its majestic mountains.

Our home is, in the words of the best-selling novelist James Alexander Thom, ``a place for health and high spirits, where one's first look out the cabin door every morning [makes] the heart swell up.'' Thom wrote of our magnetic land as it existed long before it achieved statehood, but his words ring just as true of today's West Virginia. They pay homage to a State of natural beauty, world-class outdoor recreation, year-round festivals, ancient crafts, rich culture, strong tradition, industry, and trade. It is a place of coal mines and card tables, racing horses and soaring eagles, Rocket Boys and right stuff test pilots, sparkling lakes and magical mountains, breathtaking backcountry and barbecue

joints, golf and the Greenbrier, battlefields and big-time college football, college towns and small towns that are pure Americana. It is a place of power, pulse, and passion. It is the special place we call West Virginia, the special place we call home.

I admit we have had our ups and downs and setbacks and triumphs. We have had some pretty famous family feuds--a few you might have heard of--and life can be tough sometimes. But the spirit of West Virginia has never been broken, and it never will. I learned that a long time ago growing up in a small coal-mining town of hard-working men and women called Farmington, WV. When things got tough, they got tougher.

It is as if we still hear the words of Francis Pierpont to the delegates to the Second Wheeling Convention in 1861 as they debated whether to secede from Virginia. Pierpont said:

We are passing through a period of gloom and darkness . . .

but we must not despair. There is a just God who rides upon

the whirlwind and directs the storm.

It is as if we still hear the words of President John F. Kennedy from the rain-soaked steps of the State capitol in Charleston during our State's centennial celebration. President Kennedy said:

The sun does not always shine in West Virginia, but the

people always do.

We are West Virginians. Even in the darkness and the gloom, we look to a just God who directs the storm. We are West Virginians. We are the 35th State of these United States. We are West Virginians, and like the brave, loyal patriots who made West Virginia the 35th star on Old Glory, our love of God and country and family and State is unshakable, and that is well worth celebrating every year.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Hers is the 20th also.

I know the Senator from Delaware was also, like myself, born in West Virginia. And when we think about all the famous people who have come from West Virginia, we think about the men with the right stuff--Charles Yeager, General Yeager, who broke the sound barrier in 1947; we think about the Rocket Boys and the movie ``October Sky.'' We think about the Hatfield and McCoy feud--a couple of feuds we have had and some might say are still going on; and we think about the logo for the National Basketball Association. Jerry West is the person dribbling the basketball. That is his picture. That is the logo. So we think about so many contributions, but most important of all the people in West Virginia and all over this great country have contributed to who we are today, and I am a proud West Virginian through and through.

I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the power of the free enterprise system. It is one of the reasons for America's greatness. I know from experience that private businesses do some things better than the government ever could. But over the last couple of decades, the United States has increasingly relied on private contractors to do the work the men and women in our Armed Forces used to do, and they are getting exorbitant salaries to do the same work--in some cases, almost twice the salary of the President of the United States.

To the people of West Virginia and to me it doesn't make any sense to pay a defense contractor up to $763,000 a year. That is almost twice as much as our Commander in Chief and almost four times as much as our Secretary of Defense. If we do nothing about this, this figure will automatically rise to $951,000 next year--$951,000. That is almost $1 million a year right in the middle of sequestration when we are cutting everything.

With the war in Afghanistan winding down, it is only natural for defense contractors to be looking for new opportunities, and the southern border of our country is one of the places they are eyeing. In fact, the New York Times says some of them are getting ready to demonstrate military grade and long-range camera systems this summer in an effort to secure billion-dollar contracts with Homeland Security.

I understand we need the expertise of a private industry to secure our borders, but taxpayers should not be responsible for the exorbitant salaries these contractors are demanding. So I am offering an amendment that would cap compensation for private contractors employed for border security. The cap would be $230,700 annually, which is the most a government civilian can be paid in a given year. So it is in line with what we are doing.

That is significantly more than we pay Defense Secretary Hagel or our Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano.

There is nothing in my amendment that would prevent contractors from making more than $230,000. We are not saying they can't make more than that. We are saying they can't pass that through to the taxpayers of America. They have to pay it out of the profits of their company. The only thing I

am preventing is the taxpayers from having to foot the bill.

I have heard some proposals to bring that figure down to $487,000. That is an improvement. But, frankly, I can't look West Virginians in the eye, and I am sure the Chair would have a hard time looking his constituents in Massachusetts in the eye, and justify paying government contractors that much money because it is just hard to justify. It can't be justified.

We need to get our fiscal house in order. We can't do that if we allow private contractors to charge the taxpayers exorbitant salaries of almost $1 million. It is time for commonsense controls on contractors' salaries. So I am asking for the support of this amendment when it comes to the floor.

Mr. President, as do all West Virginians, I feel a special surge of emotion every time I see the American flag. After all, Old Glory is the most enduring symbol of our country, representing the unity of our people and the cause of liberty and justice for all.

But the Star Spangled Banner is also the most recognized symbol of freedom wherever it flies in the world, a powerful inspiration to people everywhere who are ``yearning to breathe free,'' as it is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.

Every day, Americans all across this great land pledge their allegiance to the flag of the United States. We salute it; we fight for it; we cherish it; we honor it.

But one day a year, we pay special honor to our flag. We set aside every June 14th as Flag Day, commemorating the date in 1777 when the Continental Congress officially made the Stars and Stripes the symbol of America.

Tomorrow, my office is planning special events in West Virginia commemorating Flag Day. Members of my staff will be presenting American flags to selected organizations all across the State that have requested flags:

To veterans in Logan at the ``Spirit of the Doughboy'' statue, which honors the victorious American soldiers of World War One.

To the Veterans Museum of Mid-Ohio Valley in Parkersburg, which pays tribute to West Virginians who have fought to preserve this country's freedom.

To Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, in conjunction with its Team River Runner program which includes kayaking programs for wounded warriors and their families.

To American Legion Post 33, in Sutton, honoring them for conducting memorial services for veterans in Braxton County.

To the City Council of Wardensville, to be displayed at the Wardensville Town Office.

To the ``Here and There'' Transit of Philippi, as part of the dedication of its new operations facilities.

And to the West Virginia Northern Community College in Wheeling, which only last month opened its Applied Technology Center to veterans and other students.

Flag Day has a special significance to West Virginia. Our State was born out of the fiery conflict of the Civil War, and next week we will celebrate our 150th birthday.

In that terrible war, West Virginians had a choice of two flags. We chose to follow the Stars and Stripes and in doing so, West Virginia became the 35th star on that Grand Old Flag.

So as we prepare for our State's 150th birthday celebration, I urge all West Virginians to join me in celebrating Flag Day--by displaying the flag that from the first days of America came to symbolize a ``new constellation'' of hope and freedom and from the first days of West Virginia came to represent an allegiance to our remarkable Constitution.

In doing so, we honor not only our flag, but also the ideals on which America was founded as well as the generations of Americans who have defended those ideals in battle, always ensuring at the end of the fight that ``our flag was still there.''

The Star Spangled Banner is a symbol of their sacrifice and our faith.

Not long after Congress officially adopted the Stars and Stripes as the flag of the United States, George Washington said, ``We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing liberty.''

But a little poem I learned as a child from my Uncle Jimmy perfectly captures how I feel about the American flag even now:

It's only some stripes of red and white.

It's only some stars on a field of blue.

It's only a little cotton flag.

Does it mean anything to you?

Oh yes it does,

For beneath its folds

Our people are safe at land and sea.

It stands for a land where God is still king,

And His truth and His freedoms are free.

So let us love it well

And keep it pure as our banner of liberty.

This ``little cotton flag'' is displayed proudly in our homes, in our schools, in our businesses, over the Capitol and the White House, in parades and ballparks, on the field of battle, and on the graves of the heroes who fought in those battles.

It has flown from the tops of mountains, from the 9/11 rubble of Ground Zero, over the scarred wall of the Pentagon and from the surface of the moon--not once, not twice, but six times.

May our beautiful flag ever wave, and may God ever bless the country for which it stands.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak about an amazing West Virginia family who is celebrating the 75th anniversary of their small business this week on June 8. Jim Tweel founded Jim's Steak and Spaghetti House in 1938 when he purchased the Kennedy Dairy Store and renamed it Jim's Dairy Bar.

The restaurant specialized in burgers and milkshakes until 1944, when Roberto Elmoro, an Italian native, approached Jim about starting a spaghetti house using Elmoro's own personal recipes. Jim agreed and expanded the restaurant to the room next-door. Hence, the Spaghetti House opened in July of 1944.

Since that time the restaurant has been renamed and remodeled, but the values of the restaurant have remained the same: to give customers excellent service and outstanding food. Located in the heart of Huntington on 5th Avenue, Jim's Steak and Spaghetti House offers great food, from homemade spaghetti, soup and sandwiches, to fresh coleslaw, pickled beets, and tasty pies. Over the years I think I have tasted and enjoyed all of them.

But this family-owned-and-operated business offers so much more to its loyal clientele and visitors alike, because this is not just a restaurant, this is a landmark and an institution. As you step in the doors, you travel through time and are greeted by a smile from everybody. With its 1950-style decor, Jim's walls are adorned with photos of the restaurant's creator posing with some of the most renowned public figures and celebrities who have stopped by for a meal, people such as President John F. Kennedy, President Bill Clinton, President George Bush, Dustin Hoffman, Bill Cosby, and Muhammad Ali.

In fact, many West Virginians also travel from miles away to get to Jim's because the restaurant is one of the most famous spots in our State. Folks from the Tweel family are not only successful business leaders but also community advocates who are committed to making a positive difference in Huntington and the Tri-State region.

Jim Tweel established his recipe of success 75 years ago based on five principles: good service, good food, courtesy, cleanness, and ambience. Even though Jim Tweel is no longer with us, those same principles still guide the family-owned and community institution that is now run by Jim's daughter Jimmie.

Small businesses are the heart and soul of West Virginia's economy. It has always been one of my top priorities to make sure small businesses have the support they need to be successful and create good- paying jobs in West Virginia.

I wish to congratulate and recognize the Tweel family for their successes, especially 95-year-old Sally Rahall Tweel, Jim's wife and one of the current owners, as well as Jim's children: Jimmie Tweel Carter, the restaurant manager; Larry Tweel, the company president; and Ron Tweel, an officer of the corporation.

Their strong work ethic, their passion for the business, and their love of their community, all of which have been passed down from generation to generation, represent the very best our State, the great State of West Virginia, has to offer. Congratulations on 75 wonderful years.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize Katherine Bomkamp, a West Virginia University student who has, out of profound compassion for wounded veterans and incredible talent in STEM sciences, created a prosthetic device to address phantom pain felt by millions of the world's amputees.

At a young age, Katherine spent a significant amount of time at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center with her father, a U.S. Air Force veteran. There, she discovered her passion and eagerness to help suffering soldiers as she listened to the difficult challenges many of them were facing upon returning home.

The conversations between Katherine and the many veterans she encountered are what inspired her to create the Pain Free Socket, an invention that incorporates thermal biofeedback to eliminate phantom pain. This device began as a tenth grade science project and has made her a hero to veterans in distress.

Since patenting the invention, Katherine has started her own company and will soon begin clinical trials.

Not surprisingly, Katherine has received a lot of media attention as a result of her innovation and achievement, including global coverage by CNN, the New York Times, BBC, and many others.

The West Virginia University junior was even featured in Glamour Magazine as one of the Top 10 College Women in the country and won $2,500 from the L'Oreal Paris Beauty of Giving Award.

Katherine, who came to West Virginia from Waldorf, MD, is an extraordinary example of success in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, not just in my home State, but across the Nation and the world.

A Newman Civic Fellow, she is one of the youngest ever to present to the Royal Society of Medicine's Medical Innovations Summit in London, England.

I am so proud of Katherine and her dedication to helping those who have fought courageously and honorably for this country. She has found a way to serve those who have served this great Nation--and who have risked it all in doing so.

On behalf of the State of West Virginia, I congratulate Katherine on all her achievements and wish her the best of luck in her very bright future. And I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in thanking Katherine for her compassion to work for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate my friend Steve McGowan for receiving this year's Silver Buffalo Award from the Boy Scouts of America. This is the highest commendation Scouting extends to individuals for their distinguished service to the organization, and I am so proud that the Boy Scouts have honored Steve for his extraordinary efforts on their behalf.

Steve McGowan is a very successful lawyer in Charleston, WV, with the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson. And even though his law practice is demanding, Steve has devoted countless hours to the Boy Scouts of America as a volunteer. This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows Steve. He was, after all, an Eagle Scout long before he ever was a lawyer.

The Boy Scouts of America inaugurated the Silver Buffalo Award in 1926, and in its 87-year history only 732 awards have been presented. This year, Steve is one of 12 Americans chosen to receive the award-- and the first ever from West Virginia to be so honored. And in receiving the Silver Buffalo Award, Steve now holds all three of the Boy Scouts highest commendations for

adult Scout leaders and volunteers, having already been awarded the Silver Beaver and Silver Antelope Awards.

Steve's background in Scouting was one of the reasons I reached out to him in 2007 when the Boy Scouts decided to move their National Jamboree from a Virginia military base to a permanent location. As Governor, I assembled a team of government officials and private volunteers to identify the best site in West Virginia and market it to the Boy Scouts. I called the group the West Virginia Project Arrow Task Force, and it was headed by Steve McGowan.

The competition with other States was tough. Proposals were submitted for 82 sites in 28 States. But with Steve as its chief, the West Virginia Project Arrow Task Force hit the bull's eye. The Boy Scouts chose a home in West Virginia--a 10,600-acre site in the New River Gorge, with easy access to whitewater rafting, hiking, bicycling and rock climbing.

And this July, this permanent new home for the National Jamboree, the Summit Bechtel National Family Scout Reserve, will welcome more than 40,000 Boy Scouts and their leaders from all across the country to their 10-day long gathering of Scouts. This is going to be a wonderful experience for the Scouts. But it's also going to be an unprecedented opportunity for the entire world to see West Virginia hospitality at its best.

Steve McGowan helped to make all of this happen. And on Friday, when he accepts his Silver Buffalo Award at the Boy Scouts of America National Annual Meeting in Dallas, I hope he will take a well-deserved bow for all his contributions to Scouting. The Boy Scouts oath begins with a promise to do one's best and to do one's duty to God and country, and that is a promise Steve McGowan has kept every day.

Again, I extend my sincerest congratulations to him on being honored with the Silver Buffalo Award, and I thank him for all he has done for the Boy Scouts of America, for God and country and for the great State of West Virginia.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor an American hero--SGT Charles Harris of the U.S. Army 2nd Infantry 3rd Brigade. This May 30, just 3 days after our Nation's Memorial Day salute to America's fallen heroes, Sergeant Harris will observe the 1-year anniversary of his ``Alive Day.'' That is the inspiring way our wounded warriors describe the day they were injured--wounded but alive, they celebrate their second chance at life.

It was on May 30, 2012, that Sergeant Harris lost his legs and almost his life in an IED explosion in Afghanistan. And over the past year, he has come so far and so fast in his recovery at Walter Reed Army Hospital, where I first met him. With the help of his family and his devoted mother Lisa, who has been at his side throughout his recovery, he has come back from the dead. Family and loved ones are the unsung heroes in all of America's wars--and the best medicine for a faster recovery.

Charles has a dream, and it is coming true: He is building a home in West Virginia, and he will live the rest of his life there, in what he calls almost Heaven. We are honored that such a great American has chosen to make his home in our beautiful State. He will be welcomed warmly to one of the most patriotic States in our Nation.

To celebrate Sergeant Harris's ``coming home'' to a place he has never been before and to honor his heroism, sacrifice, and determination, I ask that a poem written by Albert Caswell of West Virginia be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I urge all my Senate colleagues to take time to read this warm tribute to such an inspiring hero and to congratulate him on the anniversary of his ``Alive Day.''

And may God grant him, his mother, and all of his friends many more anniversaries in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I am filled with so much pride every time I meet our military veterans who come to the Nation's capital to visit the memorials built to honor them and to commemorate the wars in which they served so courageously.

Today, 31 veterans from West Virginia, representing three generations of warriors, are here to see the memorials that commemorate their sacrifice and valor and for a special ceremony honoring World War II veterans.

And on the occasion of their visit, I want to express my deepest gratitude to these special men who helped keep America free and made the world safer for liberty-loving people across our country and beyond our borders.

I also want to say how much I appreciate the Honor Flight Network, which, since 2005, has arranged for World War II, Korea and Vietnam veterans from all over the country to visit the memorials in Washington--free of any cost to the veterans.

In West Virginia, the driving forces behind the Honor Flight Network are the Denver Foundation and Little Buddy Radio, located in Princeton. These nonprofits were founded by Bob Denver--also known as ``Gilligan'' from the iconic television show ``Gilligan's Island''--and his wife, Dreama, a West Virginia native.

But it was Charlie Thomas Richardson, the Operations Manager at Little Buddy Radio, who got the ball rolling in West Virginia. He introduced the Honor Flight Network to our State, building on the organization established in 2005 by Earl Morse, a physician assistant and retired Air Force Captain in Springfield, OH, to honor the veterans he had cared for.

The 31 veterans from West Virginia visiting Washington today came from Pocahontas, Raleigh, Greenbrier, Mercer, Giles, Wyoming, Nicholas, Fayette and Marion counties.

They range in age from 63 to 94. And while their step has slowed, their spirit is keen, their pride is undiminished, and their patriotism is unbridled.

Eleven served in World War II, one in World War II and Korea, 10 in Korea, one in Korea and Vietnam, four in Vietnam, and two in all three wars.

Two other veterans are serving as escorts for the group, along with three high school ROTC cadets.

These brave West Virginians served this great country in a wide variety of ways--as a B-24 pilot over Italy in World War II; in a heavy mortar company at ``Heartbreak Ridge'' in Korea; as a helicopter door gunner in Vietnam.

They stitched up wounds in hospitals; they assembled bombs; they inspected combat aircraft; they operated radios and radars; they cooked; and they built roads through jungles and bridges over rivers.

They won the Bronze Star, the Soldier's Medal, the Purple Heart and

Presidential Citations. Some were lieutenants, some sergeants, some corporals. Some served abroad, some stateside.

But they all served this great country. No matter the war, no matter the rank, no matter the duty, everyone of them answered America's call. In our time of need, they stepped forward and said, ``I'll do it--I'll protect this country.''

These heroic West Virginians came to Washington to tour our beautiful Capitol, the World War II Memorial, the Korean War Memorial and the Vietnam War Memorial.

But the tour of the World War II Memorial is a little different than in the past. On the third Always Free Honor Flight in less than a year, the visit will include a special ceremony called ``Flags of Our Heroes'' to honor World War II veterans who passed away before they could ever see their memorial.

Sadly, we are losing World War II veterans at the rate of approximately 800 per day--members of what we have come to recognize, and rightly so, as the ``Greatest Generation.''

This generation of Americans was united by a common purpose and by common values--duty, honor, courage, service, integrity, love of family and country. And their triumph over tyranny will be remembered forever.

The ``Flags of Our Heroes'' ceremony involves taking a photograph of an American flag with a family photo of the deceased veteran in front of the Memorial. The photo and an Honor Flight certificate will then be presented to the family--a way to show this Nation's respect and regard for their hero.

This is such a fitting gesture because, at the northern end of the World War II Memorial, the words of General George Marshall are inscribed, and they are well worth remembering every time we salute our veterans and every time this Nation prepares for war: ``Our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and overwhelming force on the other.''

May it ever be so, and may God bless the United States of America and all the men and women who keep us free.

Mr. President, today I wish to highlight a West Virginia business on its 100th year in the Mountain State--Steptoe & Johnson, a renowned and nationally respected energy law firm.

From yesterday's humble beginnings, Steptoe & Johnson now has more than 270 attorneys and a staff of 570 people, including more than 220 real estate professionals, working in 14 offices in 6 states--my home State of West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Colorado.

Over the past century of American history--through war and peace, through recessions and abundance, through tragedy and triumph--Steptoe & Johnson has persevered and prospered.

I wonder if Philip P. Steptoe and Colonel Louis A. Johnson looked 100 years into the future when they hung out their shingle and established their law firm in Clarksburg, WV, in 1913. I wonder if they ever dreamed Steptoe & Johnson would grow so large or be so influential.

They probably did, because they began their practice in Clarksburg, a perfectly centralized location with a diverse economy. That decision alone helped introduce their company to various service-related industries and public utilities.

Over the next century, Steptoe & Johnson would grow and expand numerous times, opening six offices across West Virginia, including Bridgeport, Charleston, Huntington, Martinsburg, Morgantown, and Wheeling. That solid foundation helped propel them into five other States.

Steptoe & Johnson's success story is similar to that of many of our Nation's great entrepreneurs: two men with one vision began this American-made story of service and perseverance. Today, more than 800 individuals join together on a daily basis to carry out the company's vision and mission, by offering strong representation and quality service to its clientele.

But for Steptoe & Johnson, there is no end in mind--only the future.

Madam President, today I wish to speak with great pride about a high school in my home State of West Virginia and the important role it is playing in our American democracy--Meadow Bridge High School in Fayette County.

For the 12th year in a row, 100 percent of the senior class at Meadow Bridge High School is registered to vote. This is a truly incredible accomplishment, and I am unaware of any school in our great State--or any school anywhere in the country, for that matter--that has registered every student in their senior class every year for the past 12 years.

Young voters eligible to vote today are 44 million strong--more than one-fifth of the country's electorate--and they are changing the face of American democracy.

They are engaged in their communities, they are passionate about issues, and they are politically aware. In the most recent elections, they have turned out in record numbers.

They may be the future of our country, but their voices--and their votes--count NOW.

This is just what West Virginia's own Jennings Randolph expected when he was working relentlessly in the Senate to win passage of the 26th Amendment to our Constitution--the Amendment that lowered the voting age in America from 21 to 18. It became law in 1971, and our country is all the better for it.

Every vote counts. And every voter has not only a right but also a responsibility to take an active role in our electoral process.

I tell young people all the time that you cannot just sit on the sidelines--you have to get in the game and get active, especially when it is the future of America that is at stake. Democracy is not a spectator sport.

When I served as Secretary of State in West Virginia, from 2000 to 2004, one of my top priorities was to educate our young people about the electoral process and encourage them to get involved. That was the purpose of the Sharing History and Reaching Every Student Program, also known as the SHARES program.

I am proud to say that before I left the office of Secretary of State, we had registered 42,000 high school students to vote. And, of course, those efforts have continued for the past dozen years since the SHARES program began, but nowhere more successfully than at Meadow Bridge High School.

It would be remarkable enough if 100 percent of any high school senior class was registered to vote. But to accomplish that 12 years in a row is truly extraordinary--not just a testament to the dedication of the school's staff but also a reflection of the students' commitment to their community and civic responsibility.

In fact, Principal Al Martine reports that the students themselves now take on the challenge of reaching the 100 percent registration mark. It's a matter of pride and patriotism.

The right to vote is so precious because it is the right by which all our other rights are protected. So by getting our young adults involved, we are preparing them to be active and passionate defenders of our rights as Americans.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but one that all Americans can and should embrace, the way the students, faculty and staff at Meadow Bridge High School have done. And I congratulate them on the example they have set for high school seniors everywhere.