Floor Statements

Mr. President, 150 years ago--on May 4, 1864, to be exact--the Village of Ramsey, IL, was incorporated. The village was named after an early settler named William Ramsey, who built his home on what is now known as Ramsey Creek.

Ramsey was just getting started when Abraham Lincoln was traveling from his home in Springfield to Vandalia, which was then the State Capital where Lincoln was a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. The Illinois Central Railroad, completed on January 1, 1855, made Ramsey a local trading and shipping point for nearby townships.

To put the anniversary of Ramsey's incorporation in perspective, think about what the Midwest was like in 1864. The Civil War was coming to an end and a new America was being born. It was long before planes and cars--and trains were not yet common.

By 1878, the people of Ramsey could support six dry goods and grocery stores, a drug store, a hardware store, two saloons, a boot shop, a hotel, and a harness factory. It was the second largest town in Fayette County. Ramsey even had its own newspaper in the 1880s, The Ramsey Democrat. Another publication, the Ramsey News-Journal, started in 1911. It was purchased in 1912 by Julius Mueller and remained with that family for 100 years.

The first women to vote in Illinois cast their vote in Ramsey. Mrs. Athilla Stoddard was the first female in the State to vote publicly. She was 83 years old when she voted in Ramsey on July 10, 1891.

Ramsey is small--just over 1,000 people live there today--but it has its share of famous residents. Glen Hobbie, who played for both the Chicago Cubs and the St. Louis Cardinals, called Ramsey home for a time. H.L. Hunt, an oil tycoon who inspired the TV series Dallas, was from Ramsey; and so was Tex Williams, a country music singer, songwriter and actor.

One day each year, when the Lions Club hosts its annual auction, the population grows from 1,000 people to 5,000 people.

The Village of Ramsey was in my district when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. I have been to the town many times and have enjoyed its famous chicken dinners. I camped out at Ramsey Lake State Park with my kids many years before going off to Congress. Today I extend congratulations to Mayor Claude Willis, the citizens of Ramsey, and the 4,000 people who spend a day in Ramsey each year as the village celebrates its 150th anniversary.

I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Col. Tom Murgatroyd of Sherman, IL, and his extraordinary family.

You may have heard the story of President Abraham Lincoln informing Lydia Bixby of the death of her five sons in defense of the Republic during the Civil War. This is not that story. You may have heard about the five Sullivan brothers who died on board the USS Juneau in World War II as they fought for freedom in the Pacific. This is not that story either.

No, Tom Murgatroyd's family does share that uncommon courage that runs in the blood of so many families with veterans, but this story doesn't end in the same way. Like so many great stories, this has the wonderful trait of being true. Tom had seven uncles serving in World War II, and all seven made it back home.

George and Addie Powell had 11 sons and 2 daughters. The family lived on a farm near Hillview, in Greene County, IL. In the summer of 1941, Addie wanted a picture of the whole family together. It is always difficult to gather a large family, but that picture was a rare feat and it would become a truly special one. That photo taken on Veterans Day would be the last time they were all together. Though seven of the sons would make it back home from the war, their brother John would succumb to lung cancer while those boys were overseas in 1945.

The sons who enlisted to join the war after Pearl Harbor were Arthur, Earl, Fred, George, Everett, Max, and Adrian Powell. You may be familiar with the service star pins that mothers of active duty servicemembers wore. Addie didn't have a service star pin large enough to include all of her fighting family on a lapel. Her solution was to put two pins with three stars each on the lapel. I assume she adjusted again when her seventh son joined the war. Three of the men were Army Air Corps and the other four enlisted in the Navy. The eldest, Arthur, already had a 20-year Navy career when the war started, and he returned to service as a recruiter. This sense of duty and patriotism extended to the entire Powell family, who all pitched in to help with the war effort. There would have been an eighth Powell enlisting had the war gone on another few years.

The whole family did their part for the war, but I want to focus on Everett for a moment. On March 4, 1944, he was flying his Thunderbolt P-47 on an escorting mission with a formation of Flying Fortresses. It was his 90th mission and also his mother's birthday. His plane was shot down over Belgium. He told his fighter group that he would bail out, but he never did. Two weeks later, the family was informed that Everett was missing. His mother Addie had a heart attack upon hearing the news.

Weeks turned to months, and Everett was still missing. Then, on the Fourth of July, the family received a message that Everett was alive and a prisoner of the Germans. The family's prayers were answered. Ruth, sister to the Powell brothers and Col. Tom Murgatroyd's mother, recalled that it was rightfully, ``the happiest Fourth of July'' in several years. Everett went on to endure 18 months in the German POW camp called Stalag 3. When Everett was released, he wandered until encountering the American lines and then boarded a ship to come home. He said he bought 24 chocolate bars in the ship's store and got so sick he never cared for chocolate afterward.

The family never ceased waiting to hear from their boys. While they were away, their sister Ruth made a banner for the family to represent the seven family members serving, because the military at the time didn't have any banners with more than six stars to represent the number of sons serving from one family.

The sons all wrote letters to their family. Their first questions consistently were about the crops back home before asking about family and friends. When they did return, their mom, Addie, was always waiting down the road to greet her sons.

The Powell family is an extraordinary example of what so many families experience during war. It should not surprise us that several of the Powells would continue their military service after the war. Everett, though being held in a POW camp, went on to have a nearly 30- year Air Force career. Many of the children of the Powell brothers and sisters went on to serve in the military, including Col. Tom Murgatroyd of Sherman, IL. George is the last surviving sibling who had served in World War II, and he is now living in Traverse City, MI.

I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the courage of the Powell family. Thank you, and all the families like you, who are doing their part to support our veterans and serving the country.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Nancy Rosenstengel's nomination to serve as a District Court judge in the Southern District of Illinois.

Ms. Rosenstengel has the experience, integrity and judgment to be an outstanding member of the Federal bench. She has been nominated to fill the judgeship in the East St. Louis courthouse that was left vacant by the retirement of Judge G. Patrick Murphy last December. This vacancy has been designated as a judicial emergency, and I am glad that the Senate is moving forward to fill it.

Ms. Rostenstengel knows the East St. Louis Federal courthouse well. She currently serves as the Clerk of Court for the Southern District, a position she has held for the last 5 years. In this capacity, she serves as the chief administrative officer for the court and handles the day-to-day management of its functions. She has received widespread praise for her skillful handling of the court's operations and policies.

Previously, Ms. Rosenstengel worked in private practice at the law firm Sandberg, Phoenix and von Gontard, and she served for 11 years as a judicial law clerk to Judge Murphy, the judge she has been nominated to replace. As Judge Murphy's career law clerk, Ms. Rosenstengel assisted him in hundreds of civil and criminal proceedings. It is hard to imagine better training for a judgeship than the work Ms. Rosenstengel performed for over a decade at Judge Murphy's side.

Ms. Rosenstengel was born in Alton and currently lives in Belleville. She received her B.A. from the University of Illinois in Urbana- Champaign and her J.D. from Southern Illinois University School of Law.

Ms. Rosenstengel's nomination is historic. No woman has ever before served as an Article III Federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois. Upon confirmation, Nancy Rosenstengel will be the first. And she will do an outstanding job serving the people of the Southern District. She was recommended to me by a bipartisan screening committee that I established to review judicial candidates for the Southern District. I was proud to recommend her name to the President, and I appreciate the support of my colleague Senator Kirk for her nomination.

Ms. Rosenstengel had her hearing before the Judiciary Committee in January. In February, she was reported out of committee by a unanimous voice vote. In short, she is an outstanding nominee and I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, the majority leader has brought to the attention of the Senate today the headline news across America. This report by our government about what we are facing with environmental changes in America is a call to action.

I came to the floor yesterday and I made a challenge, which I have made before. I will make it again. I am asking any Republican Senator to come to the floor today and dispute the following claim: The Republican Party of the United States of America is the only major party in the world--the only major political party in the world--that is in denial of what is happening to our environment when it comes to climate change and global warming.

I have said it repeatedly. No one has disputed it. One political party is in denial about a change on this Earth that could literally affect generations to come. As a result, we are, I guess, stopped in our tracks. There is nothing we can do.

This bill before us today--the energy efficiency bill, which is on the calendar--if there were ever anything we should agree on, it is this. If your motive in energy efficiency is to save money for a business or a family, it is in this bill. If your motive in energy efficiency is to create jobs in America, it is in this bill--190,000 maybe 200,000 American jobs. If your motive is to do something for the environment, energy efficiency is the right bill. But here we are stuck in another Republican filibuster. Why? Because they insist on a series of amendments.

The sponsors of this legislation--Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire; Senator Portman, a Republican from Ohio--basically came to an agreement on a bill that is bipartisan in nature, and there are 10 or more bipartisan amendments included in this bill.

Has the minority had an opportunity to be part of this process? Absolutely. Yet it is never enough. They want more and more, and they are prepared to slow down or stop the passage of a bill which in ordinary times would have passed by a voice vote. That is not going to happen. Unfortunately, we are going to be mired down in more procedural votes until some of these Senators get the amendments they want.

We wasted a week last week, a week in the Senate when nothing happened, when this bill could have passed. Why? One Republican Senator wanted to offer an amendment on the Affordable Care Act. They have flogged the Affordable Care Act in every imaginable direction, and now this Senator wants to deny health insurance coverage or at least make it more expensive for the staff of Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as Members themselves. That is his idea of a good idea to debate on the floor of the Senate at the expense of this bill.

Well, shame on the Senate. Shame on those who are obstructing us. We have had enough, have we not, of these filibusters and this obstruction? It is time that we roll up our sleeves and get down to the work of the people of this country.

Health Research

While I am on the subject, I am leaving to go to a committee meeting of the Appropriations Committee to talk about Federal funding for health research. This is another issue which troubles me, because of the lack of commitment by this Congress to one of the most fundamental responsibilities we have as a government.

We are blessed with the best biomedical research agency in the world today--the National Institutes of Health--one of the most extraordinarily public health agencies--the Centers for Disease Control--and we continue year after year to underfund these agencies at the expense of America's health and at the expense of creating good- paying jobs in our country.

For the last 10 years or more we have failed to give the National Institutes of Health protection from inflation, and as a result their spending power to award research grants has declined by 22 percent over the last 10 years. As to the researchers at the National Institutes of Health, there are fewer and fewer younger researchers. They have lost hope that there is a commitment by this government, by this Nation, to medical research. What is the net result? The net result is that we, at our peril, fail to do the research, to find the cures for diseases that make a difference in the lives of Americans and American families.

The Republicans argue that it is just too darn much money, that we cannot afford medical research. Well, let me give you one statistic to think about. Last year Medicare and Medicaid spent $203 billion of taxpayers' money--$203 billion--on the victims of Alzheimer's--$203 billion. If research at the National Institutes of Health could get to the heart of this disease and find a way to cure it--that would be a miracle--or delay its onset--it seems within the realm of possibility maybe--we could save dramatic amounts of money. Medical research pays for itself.

Listen to what is happening in the House of Representatives. We have a proposal for an extension of a Tax Code provision that will give a break to businesses to invest in research projects. There is nothing wrong with that. I have supported it. Throughout my time in the House and Senate, I have supported it. But listen--listen--to the logic. The Republicans in the House argue that if it is an R&D tax credit that goes to the private sector for research so they can develop new products and services and be more profitable and create more employment, it does not have to be paid for. Over 10 years, it would cost us $140 billion for the extension of this credit, on a 10-year basis, to the private sector, and the Republicans have argued, yes, this may nominally add to the deficit. But, in fact, it does not. The research and development leads to more businesses, more jobs, more tax revenue to the government, and so they argue we do not have to pay for it.

Now let me step over here. What about the research and development done, the medical research done by government agencies? Is that worth some money to taxpayers? Absolutely. Finding cures for diseases at NIH--Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer; I could go on--each and every one of them would be a savings to the taxpayers. Yet they argue: No, that is government spending; that adds to the deficit.

That is such upside-down thinking. It is such a denial of reality. Basic fundamental medical research and biomedical research by these agencies relieves suffering, finds cures for diseases, and reduces the expenditures of

our government on health care. I would argue it is just as justifiable, if not more so, for us to be making the same investment in increasing biomedical research over a 10-year period of time--incidentally, at the same cost.

A 5-percent increase--real increase--in spending in biomedical research each year for the next 10 years at the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Defense medical research, the Veterans' Administration medical research--those four agencies--5 percent real growth comes out to almost identically the same cost as extending the R&D tax credit for private companies.

Do them both. Do them both and I guarantee you America will get more than a $140 billion return for each one of them. Thinking ahead in an innovative way, with some vision toward the future, investing in research is really buying for the next generation a better life in America and a stronger economy for our country.

I want to make that appeal to my colleagues. If we bring the R&D tax credit to the floor and the argument is made: Well, we do not have to pay for that because it is going to private companies, the same argument should be made when it comes to increasing our investment in biomedical research at the most fundamental agencies that promote health in America and the world.

Back to this bill for a moment, I hope that by the end of the day the Republicans will end this filibuster, that we can start moving toward passing this bill. It should have been done last year. It should be done now. These excuses that we need a litany of amendments before we can even consider the bill are just delaying something that is very important for this country.

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

I object.

I object.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Is a unanimous consent request necessary for action just taken by the Senator from South Dakota?

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. Senator Elizabeth Warren, our new colleague from Massachusetts, and Senator Reed and I have started this effort, but we are welcoming ideas and supporters from both sides of the aisle to join us.

The conversation tonight on the floor of the Senate may be the most important conversation that millions of American families could hear, because we are talking about student debt. Student debt in this country has reached the breaking point. It has reached the point where the cover of Time magazine would have a question mark. It shows a student headed off to college and the comment of the question mark is, Is It Worth It?

It has reached the point where the cost of higher education is so high, the indebtedness associated with it so high, that many are stepping back now to ask that very basic question: Is it worth it, to go this deeply in debt for college courses--an associate's degree, a bachelor's degree, or more? That question would have been unthinkable in my day--unthinkable. If there was one driving idea in my mind from my mother and father, it was stay in school, go to college, do the best you can and don't quit, keep working at it. Thank goodness, for me-- thank goodness, for me--the Soviet Union decided to launch Sputnik. That was the biggest break I ever got in my life and I didn't even realize it.

It was October 1957. They launched this basketball-sized satellite that circled the globe. We didn't have any rockets or satellites at the time, and this satellite, as it circled the globe, let off this beep and signaled it was out there. You couldn't hear that beep on Earth with the ordinary powers of individuals--some scientist could pick up that signal--but they heard that beep on the floor of the Senate. What happened is Members of the Senate came in here--Democrats and Republicans--scared to death. We knew Russia had the bomb and now they had satellites.

We did a lot of work. We started preparing our Department of Defense to get ready; something may be coming our way. Then something happened which was nothing short of amazing. Somebody said: If we are going to beat the Russians, if we are going to beat the Soviets, we are going to need an awful lot of educated people, and so they came up with an idea. It was the first time in history the Federal Government had ever conceived of an idea of loaning money to college students to go to school, unless you were a veteran, with the GI bill. You didn't have to be a veteran. They would loan money to students to go to college, and they called it the National Defense Education Act. Sounds right, doesn't it? If we are going to defend America, we need education. So we will loan money to students all across America to go to college.

What that did was to completely destroy the stereotypes of colleges and universities, which used to be for the very brightest and the sons and daughters of graduates. In the 1960s, after the National Defense Education Act, higher education was democratized and a young high school student from East St. Louis, IL, walked into the admissions office at Georgetown University and went to school with a National Defense Education Act loan from my Federal Government.

I didn't borrow much money because it didn't cost much money, though it seemed like a lot at the time. The deal was you borrowed it, and then, in the 10 years after you graduated--you got 1 year grace period--you paid it off in 10 installments with 3 percent interest, which I did. I borrowed money for college and law school. Did I know whether that was a good idea to go in debt for college? I didn't, other than the fact I had been told over and over and over the best thing you can do with your life is to go to college.

Fast forward 50 years. Fast forward from that experience in my youth to today. Imagine a student with the same motivation for college is sitting in an admissions office and, instead of being told they may have to borrow $500 or $1,000, they are told they may have to borrow $20,000 to go to school 1 year. Imagine a 19-year-old student making a decision about being $20,000 in debt. How in the world can they make that decision? They are still motivated, they want that college education, and so they basically say: I will sign up. The admissions officer has said classes start next week. If you sign these papers you will be in there. If you don't sign the papers, you won't be. So students are signing up.

All across America, the indebtedness these students, and many times their parents, are incurring is building up to record levels. There is more student loan debt in America than credit card debt. There are tragic stories emerging from it--stories of students deeply in debt, dropping out of school with no degree; stories of students deeply in debt finishing school unable to find a job; and stories of students deeply in debt going to semiworthless, for-profit schools with diplomas not worth the paper they are written on.

What happens at the end of the day? The debt of these students is not like any other debt. Luckily, we have as a colleague in the Senate Senator Elizabeth Warren, who once taught the bankruptcy course at Harvard Law School, so she can help correct me if I am wrong--at least fill in some blanks

for me here. Currently, if someone declares bankruptcy in America today, there are some debts you cannot discharge. I am going to try to remember a few of them; she can help me with the others.

You cannot discharge taxes owed to the government. You still have to pay that. You cannot discharge money you owe for alimony and child support, if I am not mistaken.

I don't know if there is another category, but I am going to add student loans here, and I yield to my colleague, with the permission of the Chair. Did I get an A on that or at least a B?

All right. So the fourth category is student loans. If you end up in debt with a student loan, it is one of the few loans in your life you can't discharge in bankruptcy. The money you borrowed for your home, yes, that is dischargeable; the money you borrowed for your car, yes, that is dischargeable; the money your borrowed for a boat, yes, that is dischargeable; the credit line you have just for your ordinary expenses, yes, that is dischargeable; but when it comes down to student loans, it is a debt you carry to the grave. You either pay it or they will hound you for as long as you live.

That is why it is different than other debts. That is why we came together and said it is time for us to look at these student loans, the amount of debt which students and families are carrying, and do something about it.

Three bills emerged. The first bill I call the student borrower bill of rights. It says when you sit down at that desk in the admissions office they have to tell you what your rights are. They have to tell you the government loan you could use to pay for your education has a lower interest rate, more reasonable terms, can be consolidated at a later point in your life, a limitation on how much money out-of-pocket you are going to have to pay based on your income, and you might have some forgiveness if you go into some areas such as teaching and nursing. You have to be told this.

Right now, students sitting across from that admissions officer are being steered into the most expensive, worst loans. So the bill I have offered--the student loan borrower bill of rights--says, first, tell them the truth. Tell them the best circumstances for them to borrow money, if they need to borrow it.

Secondly, the bill of Jack Reed of Rhode Island basically says that a university has a vested interest in making sure a student doesn't borrow too darned much money; that a student doesn't get so deeply in debt they can never pay it back. That university, if they do not accept that responsibility, could be on the line themselves for some of that debt.

Think they will take it a little more seriously? You bet they will. That is the Reed bill, which I am cosponsoring.

To discuss the third bill, I wish to defer to the Senator from Massachusetts, with the permission of the Chair. It is the one that is a really critical element in this approach to dealing with student loans and student debt. With the permission of the Chair, I ask to enter into a dialogue with the Senator from Massachusetts.

I want to, at this point, yield to the Senator from Massachusetts to describe for the Record her refinancing proposal.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, and I see the majority leader is on the floor, so I will close with this:

These three proposals--students being admitted to college should be told the truth about their debt and the best way to minimize their debt; that the colleges will not loan more money than is reasonable or be on the hook themselves, if they do; and that students have an opportunity to refinance their student loans--would have a dynamic impact on student debt in America today and give working families and students a fair shot at a higher education they can afford without a debt that would cripple them for life.

I yield the floor.