Floor Statements

Mr. President, I recently received a letter from Kathleen Stephan of Fletcher, NC, who wrote to describe her experience with the Affordable Care Act and the impact on her health care. I wish to read her letter versus paraphrasing it.

Dear Senator Burr: I recently received a notice from Blue

Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina that my health insurance

policy will be cancelled effective January 1, 2014 because it

does not meet all of the mandates under ObamaCare.

My current premium is $418 per month. The replacement

policy being recommended to me will cost $928 per month--a

122 percent increase, and I do not qualify for subsidies.

I have had continuous coverage with Blue Cross Blue Shield

for many years, and I like the plan I currently have.

I'm a 62 year old woman, and will not benefit from the

mandatory additions to my plan, such as maternity coverage,

newborn and pediatric care.

In the past, having continuous coverage provided a sense of

security that my rates could not be raised based on a change

in my health status.

I experienced such a change in 2012 when I was diagnosed

with breast cancer and underwent seven months of treatment.

Now my rates are more than doubling, and the security is

gone, not because of the change in my health, but because of

ObamaCare.

When President Obama was selling the Affordable Care Act to

the American people, he repeatedly promised that if you like

your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.

Period.

I'm writing to you today to tell you that I do like my plan

and I want to keep it. I'm asking for fairness for myself and

the estimated millions of other Americans who will have their

plans taken away by ObamaCare.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Stephan.

How do I answer Kathleen's letter?

I yield the floor.

We have heard about horror stories. I want to talk about another one, the bill that is in front of the Senate today, the Drug Quality and Security Act.

The Senate has an important opportunity to advance balanced bipartisan legislation on behalf of our Nation's patients. The Drug Quality and Security Act will respond to the tragic events surrounding last year's meningitis outbreak and will strengthen and improve our national pharmaceutical supply chain. Last year's unfortunate compounding meningitis outbreak has reminded us that had the early warning signs been heeded, we might have been able to prevent or mitigate the crisis in the first place.

In light of what Congress has learned since the outbreak first occurred last fall, this bipartisan legislation includes provisions that respond to and take a big step toward addressing the issues which led to the unfortunate pharmaceutical compounding tragedy over 1 year ago.

America's patients expect and deserve the peace of mind that medicines they take are safe and effective. FDA's repeated warnings of counterfeited drugs making their way into our prescription drug supply chain and the increased number of pharmaceutical thefts are the early warning signs of a potential and growing threat that could significantly compromise or endanger the health and well-being of patients across our Nation.

In recent years, States have responded by putting new requirements in place. At a time when we should be working to lower the cost of health care, this increasing patchwork of State and regulatory requirements is, instead, driving up the cost of health care in America.

For more than 1 year I have worked with Senator Michael Bennet and my colleagues on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on bipartisan legislation to address these problems and to strengthen the safety, security, and accountability of our Nation's pharmaceutical drug supply chain.

The Drug Quality and Security Act, which we have before us today, includes provisions that will establish strong, uniform prescription drug-tracing standards that reflect today's realities and ensure a safer and more secure pharmaceutical drug supply chain.

The Drug Quality and Security Act establishes a uniform electronic unit-level system over the next decade that will increase the security and ensure a safer pharmaceutical drug supply chain from manufacturers all the way to dispensers. This legislation will require trading partners to be authorized to pass and receive information as part of their transactions. It raises the wholesale distribution licensing standard. It establishes licensure standards for third-party logistics providers and requires suspect and illegitimate products to be appropriately handled.

I would like to thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Alexander for their leadership on this very important bipartisan bill. I especially would like to recognize Senator Bennet, who has been a strong partner throughout the crafting of this legislation. For more than 1 year we have worked together on this bipartisan legislation with our colleagues and have finally achieved an important balance with this bill.

I might add we were told this couldn't be done. We were told this was too difficult. But for 1\1/2\ years we have tackled this objective. Congress has the opportunity to proactively put in place uniform, workable standards that will allow stakeholders greater regulatory certainty and give patients the confidence they deserve in the safety and security of our Nation's pharmaceutical drug supply chain.

Congress's opportunities are twofold because this legislation is also our chance to respond to a crisis that impacted the lives of hundreds of patients nationwide, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Drug Quality and Security Act.

Health Care

To follow up the conversations on today's bill, I listened to my good friend Senator Blunt talk about Aaron, one of those Americans caught in the crosshairs of the Affordable Care Act and its unintended consequences. I was home this weekend and I was stopped by five individuals--five individuals--with practically the identical story. They came up and said: Richard, I was covered. I had insurance. I have no preexisting conditions, nor does anybody in my family. I had a $10,000 deductible insurance policy that cost me about $450 a month, and I had the security of knowing it was there. I just got my new notice and my insurance went to a $15,000 deductible and my monthly premium is $1,440. These are five individuals--five different families--but with a similar story.

I think of the yearlong debate we had on the Affordable Care Act and the claims that were made: reduced premiums, bring down health care costs, provide coverage for those who don't have it. Today what do we see? Today's snapshot, and this may change: dysfunctional Web site, 5 million people who have been notified they have lost their insurance, a very tepid enrollment of individuals, and what has gotten lost in reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans

just like the five who came up to me this weekend. They are still getting insurance, but their deductible went up to $15,000 and their premium went up to $1,440 a month.

Tell me, where in that scenario is this affordable? Tell me, where in this process did they get a better plan than they had before? Their deductible went up $5,000. That means the first $15,000 of their health care is coming right out of their pocket and they are paying $1,440 a month to have the security of knowing there is insurance after that.

Clearly, these are five Americans who would tell me this falls woefully short of the promises made to them. I would be willing to bet in every State, in every House district around the country, we are going to continue to hear stories about this.

We will, I am sure, debate heavily where we move to from here. But don't forget that under this bill, now that we have extended the enrollment period to March 31, under the law every insurer who bids to be in the exchange, starting April 1 of next year through April 27, has to submit their bids for 2015. Let me repeat that. For every insurer that wants to be in the exchange, starting April 1 of next year through April 27, they will have to submit their premium bids for 2015. They are going to do that having no experience with the pool of insured lives because we have extended until March 31 the enrollment. That assumes the Web site gets fixed and that people are going to enroll. With little actuarial history, these insurance companies are going to have to bid for 2015. Imagine what the premium cost is going to be in 2015 when it is not 5 percent of the American people now in the exchange but it is 100 percent--it is all the employers that are impacted by 2015 prices.

I have always been taught there are signs you should pay attention to. When five people come to you and say: Listen, my deductible went from $10,000 to $15,000 and my premium went from $450 to $1,440, that is a warning sign. We ought to listen to it.

We still have a chance to fix this. Most important, as Senator Blunt talked about, it means when you have a high-risk pool in Missouri and North Carolina, you let them keep the high-risk pool. We can manage it much better on a State level than we can in nationalizing and doing top-down health care in this country.

This will not be the end of the conversation on the Affordable Care Act. The American people deserve better and this Congress must produce it.

I yield the floor.

Mr President, today I wish to congratulate and offer my support and encouragement to the people and government of Azerbaijan. On October 9 Azerbaijanis overwhelmingly reelected President Aliyev to a third five year term in only their fifth Presidential election since Azerbaijan gained its independence in 1991.

I, along with several of my colleagues, met privately with President Aliyev in Baku several months ago to discuss the great challenges facing Azerbaijan, the United States, and our allies in the region.

I took this opportunity to personally thank President Aliyev, his government, and the Azerbaijani people for their unwavering support for the United States government and its people.

President Aliyev was among the first few foreign leaders to call President Bush immediately after the attacks on 9/11 to offer his country's prayers and tangible support at a time of great crisis in our Nation.

The United States and Azerbaijan share many common strategic interests. Azerbaijan plays a vital role in efforts ranging from counter-terrorism, energy security, to the transit of U.S. and NATO supplies to and from Afghanistan.

As an important partner in the region, Azerbaijan is an active participant in NATO's Partnership for Peace program and was among the first nations to militarily support American led efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Azerbaijan's stability and prosperity in the South Caucasus, along with its continued commitment to democratic reforms, will serve as an important beacon of hope in a complex region.

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

Mr. President, a lot has been said in the last few days. I guess the issue is not everybody has said it. I am not sure that two people have been closer to the progress and the process of the Affordable Care Act than Dr. Tom Coburn and myself. We were in it in committee along with other Members.

The fact that I am not embracing a strategy to close down the government is real important. It is because at the end of the day and we open the government, the way the statute is, there is the Affordable Care Act. It is still there. I did not come to Washington to embrace strategies that do not achieve solutions. I came to find solutions to big issues so the next generation can benefit from them.

Do not misunderstand me. There is no bigger critic in Washington, DC, than the Senator from North Carolina. As a matter of fact, in the committee, I counted 58 votes on 58 amendments where we voted to kill the health care bill. I think my record stands for being opposed to this legislation.

Senator Coburn and I have introduced more health care proposals than the rest of the Congress combined--options, replacements. We have stood on this floor hour after hour on the Affordable Care Act and shared with the American people why this was a bad move. We have quoted individuals who lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Their Chief Actuary told us, before we passed this bill in this body, that this will close community hospitals, it would increase premiums, it would deprive people of health care. But the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States signed this law into statute.

There is only one way to kill a law once a law is in statute; that is, to pass a bill that is signed by a President that reverses that. To some degree, this is civics 101. It is an understanding of the legislative process. It was not the first time I disagreed with something this body had done. Let me assure you, it will not be the last time. But I also understand the way that we change this. It is not the way we are attempting to do it right now.

So what have we seen in the short period that we have gone through this? As we move up to October 1 and these new exchanges are rolled out, we have seen premiums go up. We have seen doctors retire. We have seen health care professionals move from rural America to urban areas. We have seen the health care infrastructure scared to death of what is around the corner. We have seen premiums rise.

If there is anything that is wrong, it is the title of the bill, the Affordable Care Act. We have made health care less affordable for more Americans. Let me say that again. This act has made health care less affordable for more Americans. It has tripled, at a minimum, the cost of a health care premium for somebody 30 years or under--tripled, at a minimum.

This is a group who is targeted for enrollment. They would not enroll when the premium was one-third of the cost it is today. We have heard people say that Members of Congress are trying to protect their own subsidy. Members of Congress are not going to take the subsidy. We passed legislation, but at the end of the day, the public pressure will be such that no one up here will take the subsidy.

But if we are going to treat Federal workers one way, then treat all of them the same way. Do not pick and choose who--the ones who work on the Hill, the ones who work in our offices, not ones who are in committees, not ones who work at the FDA, the EPA or whatever. Let's include everybody.

If we want an exchange to work, then we have to enroll as many people and we have to have robust competition. The way this is set up we are going to have low enrollment. The way insurers have responded to the exchanges--in my State, we have one insurer that has

entered the exchange to insure the entire State and one insurer that is representing 10 counties out of 100. That is not competition. That is almost a monopoly. I do not blame the one that is in all by themselves. I blame what we designed, where we did not empower States to actually design things that fit their health care infrastructure and their State, where individuals could buy insurance based upon their age and their income and their health condition.

We said, no, if you do not buy this plan, then you are going to pay a penalty. We have heard a lot of debate about the process, but we have not heard as much debate about the specifics of this legislation. It is bad for the American people. Regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's votes, this legislation is still going to be in statute. It is still going to be implemented on October 1.

I hope all of the thousands and hundreds of thousands of people who have responded to the request to call--and they don't always know why, except they do not like this health care plan--when tomorrow's vote is over, do not go away. The pressure has to be on this institution to make the changes.

Most Americans do not know that we are going to start taxing--or we are already taxing the manufacturers of medical devices 1.5 percent. They pay a surcharge to fund ObamaCare. We are going to charge, in the exchanges, at 2.3 percent, I believe, a health insurance premium tax for every person who purchases health insurance.

We have to ask ourselves: If we are going to tax devices and we are going to tax the insurance premiums, how in the world can the price of health care go down? It cannot. This is common sense and math matched up. It has to force health care costs up. That is, in fact, what every American sees.

Even your employer's insurance, if you are lucky enough to still have an employer that is providing it, your health care premium is going up next year. If you are in an exchange, your premium cost is going up next year. Who does it benefit? It benefited maybe people who had preexisting conditions and they could not purchase insurance. You know what the first act of the Affordable Care Act was? It was to create a national pool of individuals with preexisting conditions and they would all be offered insurance.

What happened? When about 20-some-percent of them got enrolled, the fund ran out of money and the one population that this bill was sold to protect, almost 80 percent of them, were left out in the cold with no options. It has failed since the first step.

What I hope is that American people will not leave this debate and say we have done our best. We have not done our best. The Nation is betting on us to continue on this. Our children deserve whatever it takes for us to accomplish it.

But as I started, let me say to the body, our strategy to get here was flawed. I know it sounded good, but it does not work. The only way to eliminate a bill that is in statute is to pass a bill and have it signed by a President that reverses that statute.

I am glad we have had this debate. I am glad the American people are now engaged in it. I do not think this will be the last discussion we have on the Affordable Care Act. I will assure you that as I have been before, I will be again on this floor debating my colleagues as aggressively and fairly as I can about what is wrong with this bill and why it should be reversed and why it should be replaced.

I thank my colleague from Alaska.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to be recognized on the student loan bill. The time can come out of the Manchin-Burr amendment. I am not sure exactly how we are allocating time.

Let me take this opportunity to thank the cosponsors of the bill: Senator Alexander, Senator Coburn, Senator Carper, Senator King, and Senator Manchin. Without this bipartisan approach, we would not be here today. It has not been lost on me that four of the six cosponsors are former Governors. They recognize the importance of education. They recognize the importance of students having access to that education. I think all of them are stalwarts as it relates to good education, and I think they recognize, as do Senator Coburn and I, that this is a good bill. It is good policy, the Manchin-Burr-King-Alexander-Coburn-Carper bill.

Let me take a minute to share with my colleagues or remind my colleagues where we are today. Senator King just did it. Under current law we are at 6.8 percent for all undergraduate students. It is higher for graduate students. It is higher for PLUS loans. A month ago, we had a bifurcated system where some undergraduates paid 6.8 percent and other undergraduates, who were considered subsidized, paid 3.4 percent. I would suggest that is morally wrong. I think collectively what we did was we said: How can we come up with a system that shows the equity we believe in and that provides a financial benefit to all students who participate?

So I say to my colleagues, I want to point out the single most important part of this bipartisan bill or nonpartisan bill is the fact that for two students seated side by side--one whose parents have a different income level than the other one's parents--we treat them both the same.

For the one who has a lower income level, as Senator King said, they qualify for Pell grants, for education tax credits, for loan forgiveness, for a lot of different things. But from the standpoint of the rate the Federal Government charges them to borrow money to go to school, we treat them the same. I think that is what we are supposed to do.

If we did not treat them the same--let me back up for a second--and we were treating this one at 3.4 percent and this one at 6.8 percent, understand that this one can only borrow $3,500 at a subsidized rate. Well, you are not going to enter any college today for $3,500. It is not going to happen. So you are going to have to borrow a little more. If you borrowed the maximum you can get, it is $5,500 in your freshman year. So you are going to get $3,500 over here, and you are going to get $2,000 over here but you are going to pay 6.8 percent.

What the bipartisan or nonpartisan bill does is it provides every undergraduate with, this year, 3.86 percent. In the case of the subsidized student, they are not, as before, borrowing at a lower rate for some money and a higher rate for other money, actually subsidizing themselves. And for the undergraduate who is not subsidized, they are not paying way more than they should for their college loan.

So what did we do? We used the 10-year bond, with market forces. I am not sure there is a fairer way to do it--fairer for the student, fairer for the institution, fairer for the American taxpayer. We tied it to the 10-year bond, and we got an add-on which is reflective of the cost to run the program and the risk of the loan. We hope every student pays it back, but that does not always happen. What we tried to be is good fiduciaries for the American taxpayer.

Within that, as Senator King said, they are capped. If you are an undergraduate, it is capped at 8.25 percent. It came out a little higher than that. But the tradeoff for doing that, in comparison to what my colleagues in the House have done, is that when you take out a loan this year at 3.86 percent, that is your interest rate for the life of the loan. We do not readjust it on an annual basis. This is like getting a 15- or 30-year amortized loan for a home mortgage. We are not going to come in and change the rules on you and say: Well, the United States wants more interest in the future. But it does mean, just like in a home mortgage purchase, if you buy one this year, the likelihood is, the one you buy next year might have a different interest rate because the market has changed.

I think the American people can deal with that because it is predictable. It

brings with it some certainty. You can calculate it on your own. As my colleague said, the last to set rates is the Congress of the United States. We should not be in that business. It should be market forces. With this legislation, it will be.

I sat over here trying to think of just the one phrase I would say to my colleagues is the primary reason they should support this bill and provide this benefit for the American people. I wrote down two words: financially sustainable. You see, in 2007, Congress created the current student loan program rate. A year ago--after we had extended the program because it ran out for 2 years--we said: Well, we are going to fix it. We are going to have a long-term solution. Then, all of a sudden, we did a 1-year extension. The Senator from West Virginia was the most vocal person. He said: What happened? We were going to fix it. We did not fix it. Thank goodness that is why, when it came up this year, there was such outcry over the fact that now is the time to fix it if we are going to do it. Let's go ahead and fix it.

Well, what is the test of: Did we fix it? I would suggest to my colleagues, it is financial sustainability. Can this withstand the test of time? Today we need that certainty from the standpoint of Federal spending, from the standpoint of the American taxpayer. But we also need it from the standpoint of America's children.

We are speaking as much to the 10-year-old as we are to the 18-year- old. The 18-year-old may be a freshman next year. The 10-year-old has aspirations, down the road 8 more years, that they are going to have the ability to go to college. We want to provide them with the certainty that there is going to be a student loan program out there that is equitable and fair that they can participate in and not question whether, in fact, it will exist. I think with the option we have on the table, we will be able to say that from one generation to the next.

I know we will consider this afternoon a couple of different options. I want to urge my colleagues. I think there will be two options from the standpoint of plans you can choose. If you believe equitable treatment is right, then the bipartisan bill is the one you need to support. If you believe financial sustainability is important, then the bipartisan bill is the one you need to support.

I think if you tick down all the things you probably ought to look at--what makes it most affordable; what is best for the students--I think what you will find is it is the bipartisan bill.

There has been a lot of work put into making it a long-term solution. I want to urge my colleagues. Congress changes every 2 years. That is the length of ``long term.'' But let's not put into law a sunset on this in 2 years. That is the other amendment. Why would we say we have come up with a great plan, one that sort of passes the test of equitability and sustainability, and then turn around and say: But we are going to sunset it in 2 years? Congress has the ability, with every new Congress, to look at any piece of legislation and change it. Let's make that the function of what we learn from this and not prejudge it and say: Let's cut it off in 2 years.

I am going to conclude because my colleagues are here to speak on the program as well. I thank the cosponsors--the four Governors and Senator Coburn. Without their help we would not be to this point. I thank the leadership on both sides of the institution--the majority leader and the minority leader and those who have brokered the ability for us to be here today. Without them, we would not be considering what I think is the best piece of legislation to address the challenges we have for students in need of loans for college this year and future years.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the future of student loans for America's students. When I say students, I have to define who that is because, as we know, today we have students of all ages.

We have a category of students where a financial impact requirement is applied, such as for a 19-year-old who has entered their freshman year, and depending upon where the income of their family is, under the current system they may get a subsidized loan. The maximum they can receive under that subsidized loan as an undergraduate is $3,500.

I would be willing to bet the President pro tempore and I both can't pick an institution in any of our States where the tuition on an annual basis is $3,500. It doesn't happen today, and that is the reality that has been left out of the debate so far. This debate has been all about politics and it has not been about students and how to apply affordability as broadly as we can in the marketplace.

Let me describe where we are today. Between 1965 and 1992 the cap on the student loan program in this country was 10 percent--10 percent. In the mid-2000s, Congress, very politically, said: You know what. We are going to adjust it, and subsidized loans are going to be at 3.4 percent and nonsubsidized loans are going to be at 6.8 percent, graduate loans are going to be at 7.9 percent, and if you are a parent borrowing, you are going to have an even higher rate, in the 8-plus percent range.

That strikes me as incredibly unfair. We are taking two undergraduates--two 19-year-old freshmen--entering the same institution with the same financial obligation and we are saying to one: We are going to give you a rate on your student loan that is half of the person who sits in the seat next to you--half. In this chair, the student will pay 3.4 percent, and the student sitting in the chair next to him will pay 6.8 percent. Understand, the parents of the person sitting in this chair, depending upon the cost of the institution, may have an income over $100,000. Yet they may qualify for a Federal subsidy.

Let me suggest to you that the marketplace is the thing that ought to dictate and decide what the rate is. That is the only thing that is fair to the taxpayers in this country--the predictability of knowing it is tied to something.

Let me suggest that the bill we are going to take up--and we are going to vote on a motion to proceed at 12 noon today--is a bill that was created in the 2000s. Two years ago we kicked the can down the road and said we are going to extend this inequitable student loan program at 3.4 percent for some, 6.8 percent for others, 7.9 percent, and 8- plus percent for parents. Why? Because we are overcharging some to subsidize others. Let me say that again. We are overcharging some--we are overcharging some 19-year-old undergraduate freshmen in college--at 6.8 percent so they will subsidize the 3.4 percent we are charging on the subsidized loans.

Let me point to a chart I have here which shows undergraduates under the student loan program. This is a comparison. Actually, let me move to a different chart, because this one best displays what I am talking about.

Twenty-six percent of our Nation's kids are undergraduates and are subsidized, and 55 percent of the eligible students are either undergraduates or graduate students who fall under a 6.8-percent interest rate. So when the Senate majority leader came to the floor and said some were upstairs trying to negotiate a deal, he was 100-percent accurate. But the reality is we are still only going to have a vote on one plan at 12 o'clock. There is no option for Members of Congress.

What I would suggest is that this displays why, at best, there should be two options and, at worst, we ought to vitiate the motion to proceed and see if we can come up with another bipartisan agreement.

You see, another option--the Manchin bill--is a bipartisan approach.

It is Democrats and Republicans coming together and saying we can agree on something that we think is fair and equitable and financially sustainable.

But this is the plan we are going to have a vote on at 12. Fifty-five percent of the population of students, quite frankly, are being screwed. They are overpaying. They are paying 6.8 percent for interest, when a home mortgage for 15 years is 3.8 percent. Yet we are charging students 6.8 percent, and we are saying that to go to this is an injustice to our students, where all of a sudden we take 64 percent of the kids and we treat them all alike and we charge them 3.66 percent. Something is inherently wrong in the debate we are having.

If this is about kids and about affordability, this is the plan on which we

should be having the motion to proceed, not this one. This plan merely kicks the can down the road for 12 more months.

Let me say this plan wasn't created by Joe Manchin or Richard Burr or Tom Coburn or Senator King or Senator Alexander. This plan was created by the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office in their March 2011 report to Congress came up with the idea of tying the interest rate to the 10-year Treasury bond, except the CBO says it should be the 10-year Treasury bond plus 3 percent. That is what Senator Coburn and I introduced. When Senator Manchin, Senator King, Senator Alexander, Senator Carper, and others got involved, we decided what we needed to do was continue to have a blended rate. We all agreed that an undergraduate student shouldn't face an interest rate schedule that is not equitable to all undergraduates.

So instead of applying it to 26 percent, we applied it to 100 percent of the undergraduates. We said: If you are an undergraduate in college, we are going to give you the best rate, which is the 10-year bond plus 1.85. It is fair. It is understandable. It is predictable. It is consistent. One year in advance you know exactly what your rate is going to be because it is determined on the 10-year bond every May.

My good friend Senator Harkin, whom I have great affection for, came to the floor and said we were balancing the budget on the back of the student loan program. The student loan program is a $1.3 trillion program. Based upon the CBO score on this bill, it had a 0.7-percent surplus. By Washington standards, in a $1 billion program, 0.7 would be a rounding error. This is a $1.3 trillion program. Let me assure the President and my colleagues, this is a rounding error. I can't look everybody in the face and say it might not cost us $100 billion. It might save us $100 billion. But we are certainly not balancing a $17 trillion deficit debt on the back of the student loan program. Let me assure you of that, and for any who suggest we are, that is, in fact, disingenuous.

This is the first time I have been accused of balancing the budget on the backs of our kids. But in 2010, as part of the health care reform act, Democrats ended the Federal Family Education Loan Program, FFEL, at a savings of $61 billion. Of that, the Democrats directed $19 billion to deficit reduction and the rest to help pay for ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act.

If I am being accused of balancing the budget on 0.7 percent, determined by CBO, and in 2010 the Democrats voted to eliminate the FFEL Program and save $61 billion and applied $19 billion to deficit reduction and the rest to help the Affordable Care Act, then they plowed this ground long before I did.

As a matter of fact, in 2007, as part of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, the Democrats found $21 billion in savings and spent a good amount of it on new programs--and then directed $1 billion to deficit reduction.

I said earlier, I have great affection for Senator Harkin. Senator Harkin said this should be part of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act--that may or may not happen next year.

We made changes to the interest rate on student loans outside of the higher education reauthorization in 2012 with a 1-year extension of the 3.4 percent. We did it in 2010 with the elimination of the FFEL Program. We did it in 2005 under the CCRAA, the Deficit Reduction Act. Senator Harkin's Appropriations Committee has made changes to the eligibility rules for Pell grants each of the past several years outside of the higher education authorization, including the elimination of summer eligibility, ability to benefit, and lowering of the automatic enrollment for low-income students.

It is not fair to come and say to me that I am doing it outside of higher education reauthorization when there is continually a track record of the person who accused us of doing it of doing it himself.

I would be happy to yield.

That is 100 percent correct.

That is correct.

That is correct.

That is correct.

The Senator is correct. I might add to my good friend, this chart shows exactly what we talked about. Under the plan on which we will vote at 12, because of the need for students in the subsidized category to borrow additional money at 6.8 percent, at the end of their process, they owe $78 a month, where under the bipartisan bill, where every undergraduate is treated the same, they owe $75. It is actually cheaper, even for the undergrads who are subsidized.

I think they would. I think one of the agreements we came to was that students ought to be in control of their decision about their loan rate based upon what is available to them. If students go through the next 4 years and they have a combined interest rate of about 4.5 percent for the life of the loan, why in the world would they be excited at 8.25? If for some reason 10 years from now somebody got out of school and their combined interest rate was 9 percent, we give them the option of going back to 8.25.

I think the Senator from West Virginia made an extremely good point. For the most subsidized students, they can only borrow $3,500. Think of the institutions that are out there--none of them have an annual tuition of $3,500. We know they are going to borrow out of the 6.8- percent pot. What we are offering is that the pots are the same and that the subsidy is that--for students who qualify for the subsidy-- they are not responsible for the interest rate while they are in school. That subsidy still exists. It is just that we are not overcharging one group and we are certainly not overcharging the ones we just subsidized because they have to borrow more money to complete their college education.

The most significant part is for the undergraduates who were not subsidized, they would go from 6.8 to 3.6.

This goes to the heart of what the Senator from Tennessee said. Today the subsidy goes to 26 percent of our students; 55 percent pay the 6.8 rate. Under the bipartisan bill, 64 percent--all undergraduates--get 3.66.

If this is about affordability, if this is about what provides the greatest flexibility for students to afford it, then the answer is clear. It is on the chart. But it also computes in the monthly payments to which students are obligated. The fact is that for a typical student in their first year, taking $5,000 out, $3,500 comes from the subsidy-- $5,500 out, $3,500 comes from the subsidy, $2,000 comes from the 6.8 rate.

I will be happy to yield for a question.

It holds for 1 year until the readjustment of the 10-year bond, which could by higher, it could be lower.

Higher than it was in May----

I am sure the Senator came with a chart. But let me say that we have an 8.25-percent consolidation cap. The reality is that if you are going to move to a market-based system, the question we have as Senators is, How do we drive interest rates the lowest for our Nation's students? If you put a hard cap of 8.25, then all of a sudden this interest rate goes up, if we are getting to a zero surplus. It is not going to cost us anything, not going to make anything; 3.66 goes up, it doesn't go down. So by having the flexible cap at 8.25, where anybody can consolidate at any time, we are able to do it at the 10-year bond plus 1.85. And this is all CBO numbers. We are using the same source for this.

But I think at the heart of this, and I say to my good friend from West Virginia, the real question is, Are we going to let 26 percent participate in an attractive interest rate or are we going to extend it to 64 percent, which is the entire class of undergraduates?

Would the Senator from Iowa like another question?

I will wrap up and move on.

I would rather make the points that I need to because at 12 we are going to vote on one bill. We are going to vote on a 3.4-percent extension, kicking the can down the road for 12 months, not fixing the problem, not finding the solution, and continuing to overcharge some students and subsidize another pool and go to bed at night and feel good about this.

I think the reason we have a bipartisan agreement is there are some who do not feel good about that. We look at it and we say the Senate has not done what people sent us here to do, and that is to get it as close to right as we can.

Again, I say to my colleagues--and I can go to the CBO again--the CBO scored the bill, and CBO says the bipartisan bill is within .7 percent of having no cost and no surplus. I am not sure you can get any closer than that. They have also told us verbally and showed us in scoring: put the cap in and you raise the interest rate on all students, all postgraduates, all parents. And our objective, when Senator Manchin and Senator King and Senator Coburn and Senator Alexander got into the discussion, was, How can we get rates as low as we can? Our focus was on the affordability for the students; secondarily, the sustainability of the program, which was long-term, something we do not visit every 1 or 2 or 3 years.

Let me get into specifics because there are four proposals out there. One of them has already passed the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives has a 10-year variable rate that fluctuates annually. For unsubsidized loans, the rate is 4.31; for subsidized loans, the rate is 4.31, which is 10-year plus 2.5 percent; for PLUS loans, 5.74. It removes the consolidation cap--removes it--and it creates caps of 8.5 and 10.5 percent.

The vote that we will have at noon, I think everybody knows it is a 6.8-percent rate for most students. Twenty-six percent get a subsidized rate of 3.4 percent. The PLUS loans are at 7.9 percent, and that is 18 percent of the loans at 7.9 percent.

Under the President's proposal, the unsubsidized is--I think this is backward. I think it is the subsidized at 10-year and .93; the unsubsidized at 10 year, 2.93; the PLUS at 10 year plus 3.93; and it is uncapped and fixed for life.

So it brings us to the bipartisan bill. The Senator from West Virginia said it well. What were the agreements we made? We are not going to make money and we are not going to lose money We are at .7 percent, according to CBO.

An undergraduate is an undergraduate. We should not cheat one to subsidize another. But there should be a subsidy for low-income at-risk students. The assumption is that they are not responsible for the interest payment while they are in school. The reality is that we extend the same 10-year bond plus 1.85 percent to all undergraduates.

For the graduate students, we would bring the rate down to 10-year plus 3.4, and for PLUS loans, 10-year plus 4.4, and we keep in place the consolidation cap that has been in law. Let me remind my colleagues what I said earlier before they came to the floor. From 1965 to 1992, the cap on student loans was 10 percent. If we put that in today, it will raise the percentage each individual is going to pay.

I am happy to yield.

As did I.

That is correct.

I am happy to yield the floor.

What didn't exist when my colleague went to college and graduate school was that we didn't have an income test for repayment. We don't charge anybody over 15 percent on an annual basis.

When the Senator went through the system, he was responsible to pay back 100 percent of it. Today, after a certain period of time on the subsidized loans, we forgive it. We have a lot of programs that didn't exist when he went through school. We have Pell grants that extend a tremendous amount of money that is not obligated to be paid back-- $4,000. We have student loan higher education tax credits that did not exist when he went through college.

We have a basket of products. What we are looking at is, How can we take one program, which is the rate-based program, and make it as attractive and affordable for students as we possibly can? Under this scenario, we are able to accomplish that for 64 percent. Under what we will vote on, we only do it for 26 percent. We can't help but make the argument: You are overcharging here to subsidize here.

I agree with my good friend from Iowa, for whom I have great affection, that I want to make sure every student has an opportunity to go to college and that it is affordable for all. We have a system right now where the Federal Government controls 100 percent. When my good friend went through college, there were private lenders that competed with the Federal Government. At this time we have no private lenders. We legislatively eliminated the private sector from competing for student loans. It is all dominated by the Federal Government. At least we can try to get those loans as inexpensively as we can for the largest group of college students.

I have a unanimous consent request. I hope we will entertain this because not only is the debate worthy, but a vote is worthy.

I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is not invoked on the pending motion to proceed to S. 1238, the Jack Reed bill on student loans, it then be in order to move to proceed to S. 1241, the Manchin bill on student loans; further, that the cloture motion, which will be at the desk, be considered filed on the motion to proceed; and further, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate then immediately proceed to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the pending motion to proceed to the Manchin bill, S. 1241.

Before the Chair rules, let me just say this agreement would allow us to have two votes on two versions of student loan rates that start at noon today.

Madam President, this is an important issue, and I want to thank my colleagues who came together this morning to try to find an additional solution.

I thank Senator Manchin, Senator King, and Senator Carper because they were willing to try to fix this problem. I am convinced that my good friend from Iowa is doing this in good faith, but now is the time to find a solution. It is not a year from now, it is not a month from now, it is not a week from now, it is today.

I have learned in my 20 years in Washington that ``permanent'' is defined as a 2-year session of Congress, and the next could easily change it.

The Senator is correct.

As I said earlier, how does that compute to the average student? It means a lower monthly payment. Under the bill that we will vote on, which is the current extension--the kick-the-can-down-the-road plan--they will pay $78 a month, and that number is based on a student borrowing $5,000. Under the bipartisan bill, it is $75 a month.

On the graduate Stafford comparison by month, the person who borrows under the graduate program--under the kick-the-can-down-the-road plan-- is going to pay $251. Under the bipartisan solution, they are going to have a monthly obligation of $230.

For the highest group, the PLUS loans--and in a lot of cases those are parents--the monthly obligation is going to be $197 on the kick- the-can-down-the-road plan, and under the bipartisan solution, the monthly obligation is going to be $180 in payments. Again, this is figured with $5,000 borrowed over a 10-year amortization of the loan.

It makes the good point my friend from West Virginia made: Why would we not take the opportunity to make

this cheaper for everybody for the next 12 months? If we find a better way to do it, let's change it 12 months from now.

The Senator is exactly right.

There are others on the other side who would like to speak.

Madam Chair, at this time I reserve the remainder of the time on our side and yield the floor.

If it influences the Senator from Iowa at all, I will allow my 2 minutes to go to him, if the Senator wouldn't object to him having 3 additional minutes.

Go ahead.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts stated that students in Massachusetts have come up and said: Senator, fix the student loan program. Fix it. She said that what Republicans have done is they have filibustered it. The fact is that what Republicans offered was a fix.

What the Senator comes to the floor today to do is to have a 2-year extension of a student loan program that the Secretary of Education admits does not fix the problem. As a matter of fact, in a Washington paper today, Secretary of Education Duncan is very clear and implores the Senate and the Congress: Fix it. Find a long-term solution.

Let me state for my colleagues that what the Senator from Massachusetts is here to do is to extend a preferred interest rate of 3.4 percent for 2 years on 39 percent of the student loans that are taken out. Current law is that for subsidized student loans, they are subsidized at 3.4 percent. That preferred half, 50-percent cut, is effective until the end of June. But under current law, the unsubsidized Stafford loans are at 6.8 percent. The parent and graduate PLUS loans are at 7.9 percent. My colleague's amendment only covers the subsidized Stafford loans that are 39 percent of all of the loans that are administered. So what her proposal says is that we are not going to fix it, we are going to kick the can down the road for 2 more years. To the parents and to those who do not get subsidized Stafford loans, we are going to continue to charge you double what we charge other students. If we look at the math, where we are is unsustainable.

I understand that when we voted on a Republican alternative last week, it was the Alexander-Coburn-Burr bill where we actually wanted to tie the interest rate on an annual basis to the rate of the 10-year Treasury bond. The advantage was that if you locked that in in any given year, that was your interest rate for the entire life of the loan.

What students want is predictability. What they want to do is understand how much is it going to cost them for their education, not this year but over the life of having to pay it off. Well, you know what. We put a proposal on the table. It was routinely rejected even though it was a solution. It was a fix. It was what the President has called for. It is what the Secretary of Education called for.

The President also proposed a fix. The President's--I do not agree with all aspects of it, but it is a start. It is the nucleus of a compromise. In the President's bill, he ties everything to the 10-year Treasury bond--very similar to the fix Republicans came up with. Here is the difference: The President ties subsidized loans to the price of the Treasury bill plus .93. Ours was 3.0. On unsubsidized Stafford loans, it was 10-year Treasury bill plus 2.93--almost identical to the Republican proposal. For parents and graduates, the President's bill called for a 10-year bond rate plus 3.93 percent. So if you do the math and you look at 60 percent of it not being subsidized and 40 percent being subsidized, what Republicans laid on the table and what the President laid on the table are very similar. As a matter of fact, both the Republican proposal and the President's proposal said: Let's fix the rate for the life of the loan.

So not only am I being asked today to agree to a unanimous consent request to take up a bill that does not fix the problem, I am being asked to grant unanimous consent to a bill that does not even extend the same rate for the life of the loan for the students who are borrowing it. Imagine where we would be in the marketplace if we wanted to buy a home, and when we walked in, our lender looked at us and said: I am going to lend you the $300,000, but I have a right to readjust the rate every year. Some people take a risk at doing that. They are called mortgages that are fixed with ARMs--adjustable rate mortgages. After the downturn, they were not very popular. As a matter of fact, many of those were the ones that were foreclosed on.

Here is the challenge: We have to present something that is understandable and that is predictable and something that is financially sustainable for the American people. Some have come to the floor and they have been brave enough to say that these bills actually produce savings. Let me squash that. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that direct student loans issued between 2013 and 2023 will cost $95 billion based upon a fair value basis, in contrast with a projected savings of $184 billion using questionable fuzzy math.

So make no mistake about it, there are no savings that can be claimed from any of the proposals that are out there. It is a cost to the American taxpayer, one that I think is a justifiable investment in education if we applied it to everybody. But this is not applied to everybody. It is a unanimous consent request for 39 percent of the individuals who take out student loans. To the other 61 percent, it says: Hey, you live with 6.8 or 7.9.

So I am not in a position today to agree to the unanimous consent request that has been made, but I am in

a position to do this: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill that is at the desk, which is the proposal of the President of the United States on student loan issues. I further ask that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form and that at the expiration of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill.

Let's put this to bed now. Let's not wait until the end of June, when we have used a couple of more weeks, to say to kids: You ought to be concerned because rates are going to go up. Let's lock it down. I will not argue with the rates the President set even though I do not agree with it all. It starts to fix the problem. It is a solution in the right direction, where just assuming that we extend what is currently broken, does not fix it, and is not cost-sustainable, I believe is the wrong thing.

Madam President, continuing my objection, I am appalled. I am, frankly, appalled. Out of the student loan program, the Democrats push $8.7 billion to the Affordable Care Act; $8.7 billion of student loan-designated money is going to pay for ObamaCare.

I realize the Senator wasn't here when the vote was made, but it is $8.7 billion. To suggest that trying to be fiscally responsible is an insult to this generation of students when they are sending $8.7 billion to a health care plan out of the student loan fund is incredible.

Let me go a step further. The Senator quoted from the Congressional Budget Office. Let me quote from the Congressional Budget Office as well:

Taking account the cost of market risk significantly

reduces or eliminates the savings estimated for student loans

under the FCRA approach, making student loans costly to the

Federal government in most years during the coming decade.

Maybe you can pick these out that say we can make money off this, but I am not sure it says it any clearer than that it costs the American taxpayers money. Let me say I am fine with subsidizing student loans. I am not objecting to that. I didn't object to the President's proposal. I offered the President's proposal.

I am sure the President is going to be shocked to find out it doesn't solve the problem because the Secretary of Education surely believes it does.

Here is what I object to. I object to the fact that we are going to give some kids a preferred rate, and we are going to sock it to the 61 percent of kids, parents, and postgrads. Why should they be denied the same rate? Why are only 39 percent going to get a cut of 3.4?

Why? Because it is hard to do. It gives away a political tool.

You see, we are here arguing this because of politics, not because of affordability of higher education. Thank goodness the President in his budget proposal laid something on the table.

Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of waiting until the deadline. We are going to come out here every week, and we are going to hear in 3 weeks: This is going to happen; in 2 weeks: This is going to happen; and in 1 week: This is going to happen. We are going to come down to the last day and we are going to dare each other not to do it.

I don't know what is going to happen on the last day, but I can tell you what is going to happen every day until the last day. I am going to come out and object to anything that does not solve the problem long term. I don't want to go home and look at kids and tell them the rate they agreed to this year is not the rate for the entirety of the loan, period.

That is not the case under this bill. I am not going to go home and look at two different students whom we have put in two different categories and tell one: You have to pay 3.4 percent, but you have to pay 6.8 percent.

That is wrong. It is not our role to pick winners and losers.

I would turn to my good friend from Massachusetts and ask, Have I in any

way, shape or form misstated what her proposal does, which is extend the 3.4 percent which is limited only to subsidized Stafford loans?

If the Senator thinks that is wrong, I would ask her to speak now.

Reclaiming my time----

Reclaiming my time, clearly, the Senator said her bill only deals with the subsidized Stafford loan.

Under current law, let me state it again, unsubsidized Stafford loans, current law, 6.8 percent; parent and graduate PLUS loans, 7.9 percent. Somehow, somebody thinks this is fair.

I, personally, participated in coming up with something that treats everybody the same, that ties it to a 10-year Treasury, that fixes the rate above a 10-year Treasury that sets that number once a year, lets students know exactly what their exposure is going to be, and provides them the certainty of that interest rate for the life of the loan----

Let me finish--which this unanimous consent request doesn't incorporate.

In essence, the unanimous consent request says we are not going to deal with this 61 percent; we are only going to deal with 39 percent. Because they have received the preferred rate up to this point, we want to protect the preferred rate.

Some people think it is the role of Congress. I don't think that is the role of Congress.

I yield to the Senator for a question through the Chair.

I would be happy to address the Senator's question.

No, we haven't. The President's proposal--and I said there are parts of it I don't agree with--makes loan forgiveness tax free.

Maybe what we ought to debate is whether we are going to make college tuition free, because this is a race for who can make it the cheapest on the backs of the American taxpayer--when we are $1 trillion out of balance, $1 trillion we spend.

Excuse me, we have new numbers: $646 billion this year, projected to go up next year. We are accruing debt on this country's books at a rate nobody ever dreamed. We are still talking about constructing programs that financially are unsustainable because we are using somebody else's checkbook.

This is the definition of insanity. Therefore, I would object to the Senator's original request.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask unanimous consent to ask one question of my colleague from Massachusetts.

Does the Senator from Massachusetts agree that out of the student loan fund $8.7 billion is diverted to the Affordable Care Act?

The Senator is not aware of that?

I thank my colleague for not answering.

Mr. President, I am here to say to my colleagues that although we are going to go through a very expedited process of voting on two options

on student loans, I want to urge my colleagues to take this seriously. This has a huge financial impact on families across this country, and I say ``families'' because we are focused on the students, and in many cases it is the parents taking out loans, and the truth is that under one option today parents are left out.

You see, the debate on this floor today is over two bills--one offered by my friends in the majority, which would extend the 3.4- percent interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans. That is 39 percent of all the student loans taken out. It does not speak to the 61 percent that is still under the 6.8 percent rate. It is parents, it is students who take out unsubsidized Stafford loans. They are still at 6.8 percent.

But more importantly, you need to look at the financial sustainability of the program. When this was originally enacted in 2006, the campaign rhetoric was, we are going to drastically cut student loans for everybody--until they realized how much it was going to cost. Then they limited it to subsidized Stafford loans. When the authorization for that runs out, we have this debate about whether we are going to extend the 3.4-percent student loan rate. We just forget to tell everybody it is for a subsection of everybody who is taking out student loans.

So let me suggest that the other option today will be to put student loans on a financially firm footing, something we can certify for the future is financially sustainable not just for the students and for their parents but for the American taxpayer. They should have a voice in this.

So what Ranking Member Alexander and Senator Coburn and I have introduced is a comprehensive piece of legislation that ties the rate of student loan borrowing to the rate of the 10-year bond in May of that year.

So this past month we would take the rate of the 10-year bond--which was about 1.79 percent--we would add 3 percent to it, and for the next year the rate for everybody taking out student loans would be 4.79 percent. Some Members of the Senate cannot add. And for the next 12 months anybody who took out a student loan would be at 4.79 percent-- not some at 3.4 percent, not the rest at 6.8 percent. That 4.79 percent would be a fixed rate for the life of the loan. It would not go away in 12 months and have to be renegotiated based upon what the will of Congress was and the legislative mandate of what the interest rate was going to be. Every year that somebody went--whether it was a parent, whether it was for a nonsubsidized Stafford loan or a subsidized Stafford loan--whatever that May establishment of the 10-year bond rate was, you would add 3 percent to it. It would be very predictable. You would not be at the whim of, is Congress going to extend this?

Let me predict to you. I know what we are going to do. We are going to have two options up today, and neither one of them is going to get 60 votes. That means it is not going to pass. And the day before or 2 days before the expiration of the 3.4-percent rate, people are going to rush to the floor and say: We cannot let this happen.

We have an opportunity to fix it, to fix it on a permanent basis, to say to parents, to say to those with the nonsubsidized Stafford loans and, yes, to those with the subsidized Stafford loans: We are putting this on financially sound ground, and we are going to do it in a transparent way that lets you know every May exactly what you can borrow money for for your college education.

Some might conclude, well, if you borrow every year for 4 years, you are going to have different rates. You are right. The reality is that in this bill you have an option, at any point you choose to do it, to consolidate those loans at a guaranteed 8.5 percent. So if it is more attractive to have four different packages of loans with lower interest rates or the blend of them might be higher, you can consolidate them and take a guaranteed rate.

I heard my good friend quote the Congressional Research Service. They came out with an analysis of the two pieces of legislation last night, and they came to this conclusion: that for the subsidized Stafford loans, the Alexander-Burr-Coburn proposal was not very different from what my friends on the other side presented, but for everybody else-- for the 61 percent--it saved them $80 a month.

Let me say that again. For everybody else who is not in the subsidized Stafford loans, the Congressional Research Service said our bill saves parents and students--those who are in the nonsubsidized student loan program--$80 a month. That is almost $1,000 a year. This is real money. This is what Congress should pay attention to.

Let me suggest this. Congress should not be sitting in Washington deciding with a dartboard: Here is what the student loan rate is going to be this year. Should the price of money in the marketplace not have some impact on it? What we are simply saying is, tie it to a very predictable, transparent number--the 10-year cost of borrowing money, plus 3 percent.

You see, unlike throughout the 1990s and half of the 2000s, we do not have private sector competition against the government model. We decided that having financial institutions come in and offer more attractive interest rates or waiving origination fees or the administration fees of a student loan--no, no, no, we did not want that to happen even though in many cases it saved students money. We said we want to centralize this in the Federal Government. We want to take over the whole thing. And then the Congress decided: Do you know what, we want to set the rates.

Let me suggest to my colleagues that this is nothing more than a political tool right now. The last people we are trying to look at are the students or their families who actually need loans to send their kids to college.

Today's vote is a defining moment. If we take advantage of passing one that structures this to where the rates we set are out of congressional control and set by the marketplace in a predictable, transparent way, then this is sustainable. If it is not, this will be the subject of every 2 years and campaign rhetoric, where some win and some lose.

I did not come here to pick winners and losers. I came here to give equal opportunity and unlimited opportunity to the next generation and the generation after that. To suggest that only people who qualify for subsidized Stafford loans are the ones we should give favorable treatment to is ludicrous. What we would like to do is to provide a predictable mechanism to set rates but one that does not pick winners and losers, one that treats everybody who is in the student loan need category the same.

I see the ranking member is here, and I am going to yield to him. But I do want to say to my colleagues that this is not just another 15- minute vote. You should not feel good if you vote for one and vote against another and nothing passes because we are going to be back here before July 1, and the likelihood is that it is going to be presented to us in a way where we are not going to have the option of doing the right thing. They are just going to say: Do you want to suffer the political consequences of letting the rates go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on 39 percent of the American people? I would tell you that a parent borrowing money for their children today is just as vulnerable as a student who is qualified and borrows under a subsidized Stafford loan.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 1992 the Congress created the Direct Loan Program. When this program was originated, the loans to students were at variable rates. Let me say to my colleagues this morning, Congress now sets the rates. We changed that in 2006.

The bill you will talk about now--let me just pose this to you: If you believe it is appropriate for Congress to pick winners and losers, then support this bill. If you believe it is appropriate for Congress to subsidize 40 percent of the student loan population and overcharge the other 60 percent of the student loan population, then vote for this bill. If you believe that is not the congressional role and that we need a long-term, permanent, transparent, predictable solution, then vote against this bill and let's sit down between now and July 1 and write a bipartisan approach that solves this problem once and for all.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes on the Feinstein amendment.

Madam President, let me first say about the comments of Senator Alexander, you see why he is a former university president, a Governor, a Secretary of Education, a candidate for President, and now some would call him a Senator. I think you would call him a statesman, because he tries to lay it out in a way we can all understand it, with facts and not hyperbole, and this is an opportunity for us on both sides to step back from the brink and actually do the people's business, to get something done, to solve big problems.

I came to the floor to talk on the Feinstein amendment, knowing it is not up for an hour--and I will be very brief, to my colleague from Virginia, because I know he wants to talk about judges--primarily because there is some misinformation that has been stated. Let me recap the tobacco industry in a very brief summary.

Tobacco, like many agricultural products, for years received a price support system that the Federal Government, the Congress of the United States, put in place. A number of years ago, Members of Congress said, for obvious reasons, the Federal Government probably should not have a price support on something we consider not to be best for people's health. At that time farmers reluctantly listened to Members of Congress who said the international market should be open to you and we should do our best to make it unlimited, and we did. At that time we eliminated the price support system.

Senator Feinstein came to the floor--I do not think she did this intentionally--and she said it costs the American taxpayer $10 billion. In fact, there was not one dime of American taxpayer money that went to the tobacco buyer; 100 percent of the cost of the elimination of that program was absorbed by the tobacco companies. So, yes, if the purchase of a pack of cigarettes and the profit that goes to a tobacco company and the $1.01 in Federal taxes they pay per pack of cigarettes is the American taxpayer paying the price of the buyout, she is right. I am not sure you can make that connection.

But I want to state for my colleagues: The Federal Treasury did not pay $10 billion to buy out tobacco farmers. It was the companies, the ones that understand they have to have a viable, abundant source of product. Sixty percent of what we grow in the United States is shipped for export. It does not go to the domestic market.

Let me say to my colleague, if the intention of this is to be punitive to this product, for gosh sakes, come to the floor; change your amendment; let's vote up or down as to whether tobacco is going to be legal. If the purpose here is to suggest we are going to save taxpayer money, let me suggest if you put every tobacco farmer out of business--and this is the commodity that achieves, actually, our best balance of trade in agricultural products--you would make a real long- term mistake. The only thing this commodity, this agricultural commodity, asks is let us participate in the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Without that protection it is impossible for my neighbor, your neighbor, the backbone of the community--a farmer--to go to a bank and say: Can you lend me enough money to plant my crop this year? And if Mother Nature is good and I work hard I am going to be able to sell this product, I am going to be able to pay you back, and I am going to be able to make a profit to feed my family. Without that assurance of a safety net they would never get the bank to loan the money.

This is about availability of capital, this one cost. Why in the world we would pick one commodity out of the entire agricultural industry and say everybody else can participate in the crop insurance program but you can't is insane.

Let me say to my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, I don't think this was intentional. I think she either got bad staff information or she made a gaffe.

To my colleagues, let me encourage you, vote against this amendment. Don't do this to a piece of the agricultural community that is profitable, that works hard, but, more importantly, contributes a lot to the backbone of this country.

I yield the floor.

I speak in opposition to the amendment.

Let me say to my dear friend from California, whom I really respect, the tobacco buyout was not paid by taxpayers, it was paid by the tobacco companies. It happened several years ago. The only program tobacco farmers participate in today is crop insurance, like every other agricultural product in America. Without that safety net, those farmers can't go to the bank and get capital to plant their crops.

Although I think we can all agree that tobacco is not healthy for you, some Americans make the decision to do it because it is legal. Eliminate the American tobacco farmer and you will replace them with tobacco grown in Zimbabwe and Brazil--around the world. If we want to outlaw tobacco, let's have that vote, but don't walk away and believe that a vote eliminating crop insurance is going to change the health care of the American people as it relates to this product.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Hanes Magnet Middle School in Winston-Salem, NC, for being recognized as the top magnet school in the country. On May 7, 2013, Hanes was awarded the prestigious Dr. Ronald P. Simpson School of Merit Excellence Award, which recognizes one school for innovative programming, academic achievement, and promoting diversity. Hanes Magnet School, which focuses on science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, has worked within the Winston-Salem community to provide real world application of STEM, taking students out of the classroom for innovative, hands-on application of STEM. This approach has increased student engagement, and I believe achievement within the school overall.

Hanes has only been a magnet school for 6 years but in that time has seen large increases in enrollment, matched by equally impressive gains in its achievement data. Magnet schools like Hanes provide parents with expanded options for their child's education--options that will ensure students aren't confined to schools that might not be serving their individual needs. For that reason, I am proud of the success Hanes has achieved as recognized by this award. Congratulations to principal Melita Wise, the parents, students, and everyone else at Hanes for this award. It is well deserved.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay homage to the beautiful Town of Edenton, NC. I join its citizens, its friends, and city and State leaders in celebrating their historic 300th anniversary. Originally known as the Town on Queen Anne's Creek, Edenton was renamed after the death of the first man appointed by the Crown as ``full'' Governor of North Carolina, Charles Eden, in 1722.

The first Colonial Capital until 1743, Edenton citizens were widely known for their steadfast values and dedication to a free society. Edenton's Penelope Barker was the first woman to organize a political event in the colonies when she gathered women from the region to a petition to King George opposing taxation. The son of Edenton's James Iredell, Sr., was nominated by President George Washington to serve on the first U.S. Supreme Court, and was confirmed the very next day at only 38-years-old. Edentonian Hugh Williamson signed the U.S. Constitution and effectively argued for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Edentonians have long been a proud community committed to our Nation's founding principles.

The Chowan County Courthouse in Edenton is not only North Carolina's oldest courthouse, but also the State's oldest government building. It is still in use today. The impressive building, of southern Georgian architecture, was built in 1767 on a plot of land first surveyed in 1712. Today, it is recognized as a National Historic Landmark. One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Joseph Hewes, a long- time Edenton resident, was instrumental in making the courthouse a reality.

Thanks to the Town of Edenton, Chowan County, the Edenton Historical Commission, Chowan County Tourism Development Authority and many citizen leaders, the town's treasured historic sites remain healthy and preserved. These treasures not only serve to teach us about our Nation's rich heritage, but they also boost our economy and attract people interested in our Nation's history from around the world. These include the 1767 Courthouse, the Barker House, the Roanoke River Lighthouse, Edenton Cotton Mill, the Cupola House, and the second oldest church building in North Carolina, Saint Paul's Episcopal Church.

Because of the community's tireless efforts to preserve its heritage and promote the arts and culture, I doubt anyone visiting Edenton today would be surprised to learn that it received the distinguished Forbes.com award as one of America's Prettiest Towns.

I am proud to join the entire Edenton community in congratulating them on this historic occasion.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Winston- Salem, NC, which I proudly call home. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the consolidation of the towns Winston and Salem. Before their consolidation, each town had a long and prosperous history. Salem was established in 1766 by members the Moravian Church. Today, Old Salem Museum and Garden still shows life as it was 200 years ago. It features the iconic 12-foot tall coffee pot first erected by Julius E. Mickey to attract customers to his tin shop in 1858 and the Moravian Easter Sunrise Service in God's Acres cemetery has been a yearly tradition since its inception in 1773. The town steadily increased in influence and commerce activity and was incorporated by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1857.

In 1849, Salem sold the land to its north to Forsyth County to serve as the county seat. The land was named Winston, in honor of local Revolutionary War hero, Joseph Winston. Ten years later the town was incorporated. In the 1870s the town was connected to the North Carolina Railroad. This gave way to many factories; Reynolds and Hanes being the largest. Their healthy competition helped Winston grow remarkably over the next three decades.

The two towns worked closely together on many issues, and began to have a unified identity. Winston and Salem's citizens then voted to consolidate the two towns into the city of Winston-Salem. This officially took effect May 9, 1913, and Oscar B. Eaton was elected the first mayor of the newly formed city. After consolidation, Winston- Salem was one of North Carolina's foremost cities throughout the 1920s due to vastly successful R J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., Hanes Knitting, Hanes Dye and Finishing, and Piedmont Airlines.

The Winston-Salem Arts Council was founded in 1949, and was the first of its kind in the Nation. It has led to the rich arts culture that Winston-Salem enjoys today. The University of North Carolina School of the Arts was established as the first of its kind State-supported arts college in the United States. Through the years the university has equipped thousands of men and women developing the arts in the program to incorporate dance, design and production, drama, film making, and music. Today, Winston-Salem is known as ``The City of the Arts and Innovation.''

As the economy changed in the 1900s, the leaders of the city successfully worked to make Winston-Salem prosperous in the new age by establishing the Piedmont Triad Research Park, which recently became the Wake Forest Innovation Quarter. This equipped the city with technological and medical jobs that has grown to be the leading of industry in Winston-Salem today.

Winston-Salem has received many accolades for its friendly business environment, low cost of living, lively downtown district, and many other aspects. In Winston-Salem, May 9-12 has been set aside to celebrate the 100th anniversary of their consolidation. So I join my fellow Winston-Salem citizens and leaders in celebration of this historic anniversary.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment numbered 720.

Madam President, I ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise today in the middle of an important debate on gun control to talk about an issue that should have been at the forefront for years, and it deals with our Nation's veterans.

I am specifically talking about 129,000 of our Nation's war heroes. Due to a determination within the Veterans' Administration, these war heroes have been deprived of their Second Amendment rights to own firearms.

This is apparently a much tougher issue to understand than I thought because it makes common sense to me that we should hold all individuals to the same threshold before we take their constitutional rights away. If a person is a Social Security beneficiary and Social Security makes a determination that person has a hard time handling their finances, Social Security will assign a person to him or her who will help them to navigate the financial challenges that a senior runs into. They don't just send somebody to do that and then turn around and put their name on the NICS list, which is the instant background check that automatically deprives a person of their Second Amendment right.

The IRS doesn't equate the fact that because someone cannot handle their finances that they are mentally incapable or that they are a harm to themselves.

What we have is a Veterans' Administration that when they find the veteran needs help with their financial affairs, the VA sends their name to the FBI, and they go on a NICS list. All of a sudden that takes away their Second Amendment right to own a gun.

It says anybody who lives in that house--so it could be a spouse, a child, including an adult child--cannot own a firearm because the ruling says there cannot be a firearm in the residence. Clearly, after an appropriate determination, if a veteran, or any other American, is found to be a harm to themselves or has a mental disability, we would all agree that person should be disqualified from gun ownership.

Let me say for the purposes of my colleagues--and for the American people--this is not the standard we currently apply at the Veterans' Administration. We look at a veteran who served his country and we say: You cannot balance your checkbook, so we are going to assign a fiduciary to you to balance your checkbook. That person cannot own a firearm. Think about that. The fiduciary may be the spouse, and suddenly that name goes to the NICS list. Why? Because within the VA an examiner has determined that an individual could not handle their own finances.

The examiner is not a medical professional. I am talking about somebody who made a determination as to whether this veteran could handle the deposits of their VA checks and line up the payments which they need to make. If it has been determined they could not do that on their own, that would therefore automatically trigger that veteran's name. That name would be sent to the FBI and they would then be deprived of their Second Amendment rights in this country.

Let me suggest that the current process is arbitrary. It doesn't look at whether they represent a danger to themselves or to others. It is in no way relevant to whether the individual should have access to firearms. To the credit of those who have brought amendments to the floor for the gun bill, they have tried to address this issue.

I commend Senator Manchin, Senator Toomey, and Senator Kirk--who has been passionate about this--but what they have tried to do is say: We have to get an appeals process that is streamlined and easier.

What I am saying to my colleagues is, these are people who should have never had their Second Amendment right taken away. They should not be on the NICS list. There has been no judicial determination of mental incompetence and no judicial determination

that they are a threat to themselves or to others. There has been no medical determination of a mental disability that would cause them to be a threat to themselves or anybody else. We have simply made a financial decision that they were not capable of handling their own finances.

What I disagree with is that I don't want the Senate to focus on what should be the appropriate appeals process. What my legislation, amendment No. 720, does is get to the heart of it. It says what we are going to do is require the VA to go through a different process to make a determination before taking their Second Amendment right away.

Some will say the VA has an appellate process. We have 129,000 veterans today who currently have had their Second Amendment right taken away. Only 200 of those veterans have sought relief. Only 200 out of 129,000 veterans have sought relief. Here is the shocker: In less than a dozen cases the appeal has been reversed. The determination has been reversed in less than a dozen cases.

Why would only 200 people appeal this decision which was arbitrarily made by the Veterans' Administration? Well, the VA doesn't provide any help. As a matter of fact, the veteran is on his or her own. Even the cost for the appeal is absorbed by the veteran.

We have made it as difficult as we possibly can to deprive veterans of their Second Amendment, and then to say we are going to make it even harder for you by making it harder for us to reverse this because now veterans will be required to have financial skin in the game. Well, out of the 128,000 who haven't applied, having looked at only a half dozen being appealed, where is the incentive to invest money? A person might as well throw it down a rathole.

So what I am suggesting to my colleagues is that the standard shouldn't be, Can you take care of your finances; the standard should be and ought to be, Are you a harm to yourself or to others--a determination that everywhere else in society is made by the bench, by a judicial review.

My good friends who offered an amendment to fix the appellate process suggested we should internally, within the VA, set up this appeals process whereby we overcome some of the hurdles of the costs and whether a veteran has aid. Let me say to my colleagues: Are we confident we can set up a real appeals process within an agency that is so blind they put 129,000 people on the NICS list and deprived them of their Second Amendment right? Can we take the individuals who made this interpretation and believe they can go through a fair appellate review of an applicant's request to be taken off the list? I personally don't believe that can happen. For that reason I am offering an amendment to this bill to change the standard--not to eliminate whether a veteran is listed as a harm to themselves or others, and that, in itself, would take away one's Second Amendment ability to own a gun, but it is to say apply the same standard to veterans we apply to every other American.

Imagine what would happen if every Social Security beneficiary who got assigned somebody to help with their finances lost their Second Amendment right to have a gun. We would kill ourselves, 100 Members of the Senate, trying to get to the Senate floor to change the law because the pressure would be so great. The numbers may not be as big as we might see out of Social Security, but that is the entire population.

I suggest to my colleagues I can't think of a population in America that deserves their Second Amendment right protected more than those who laid their life on the line to protect this Republic we have.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 720. I am not sure what the disposition of this piece of legislation will end up being, but I am convinced that with the addition of amendment No. 720--a vote in favor of this amendment makes whatever this bill looks like at the end of the day a better bill, one that fairly represents our Nation's veterans, and I think continues our commitment to people who have made the ultimate sacrifice to their country.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.