Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 468, which was submitted earlier today by Senator Blumenthal.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 469, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, it is my understanding we are ready to act on this resolution.

Madam President, I now ask that we act on the preamble.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 am on Tuesday, May 22; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the majority leader be recognized; that the first hour following the remarks of the majority leader and Republican leader be equally divided and controlled between the two sides, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the second half; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Madam President, it is the majority leader's intention to resume the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 400, S. 3187, the Food and Drug Administration user fees legislation, when the Senate convenes tomorrow. At 2:15 the Senate will begin consideration of the bill. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

I appreciate the work of the Senator from Rhode Island and Senator Harkin. Of course, Senator Reed has been working on this issue for months and months. I am still amazed that the Senate refuses time and again and the House refuses to do the right thing.

This started back in 2007. It was bipartisan with President Bush, with the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate. The Presiding Officer was involved, Senator Reed and others, and we passed it. We did a 5-year freeze of interest rates. Now the bipartisanship seems to have gone, and repeatedly this body has either failed to step up or actually voted no or voted wrong in some cases to move forward on this.

As Senator Reed has said, I, too, have tens of thousands of people-- 380,000 Ohioans--who are now in the Stafford subsidized loan program. It will mean about $1,000--as it will in Rhode Island--per student, per year if we fail to act by July 1.

I have been at four campuses just in the last month or so. I have been at a community college in Cleveland, the University of Cincinnati at the other end of the State, Wright State University in Dayton, and Ohio State University in Columbus. I saw students--one was from the Young Republicans on one of the campuses and others are Democrats-- trying to find a way to pay their bills. They are working-class kids, middle-class kids, poor kids--kids who want to find a way to get ahead.

We hear the same stories over and over, but let me just share one. On my Web site people sign up and come to the Web site and tell their stories. I will just share one of them. I know Senator Reed has been hearing from people in Providence and Warwick and all over his State also.

This comes from Dorothy in Mount Sterling, OH. She wants to be a special ed teacher. Dorothy says:

I never thought that student loans would have such a huge

impact on my life. I am studying to be a special ed teacher.

I really want to make a difference so that our youngest

generations have an equal opportunity to succeed in life.

I rely on student loans to pay for my education and assist

me in times of need in this harsh economic climate.

Higher interest rates mean that I will never be able to

afford a home, a reliable vehicle. I will never be able to

provide for my family, and I will always feel in debt for

trying to make myself a better person and trying to be a

better citizen for our country and the State of Ohio.

If given the chance for a better job opportunity outside my

area of expertise, I would surely take it into great

consideration. I know that in the years to come, I will

desperately be looking to relieve myself from the cost of my

college education.

I feel like I have been punished for wanting an education

and wanting to better myself so that I can better the lives

of others. I just wanted to make a difference and I am

fighting against those who do not even realize what it means

to truly struggle.

Please don't stop fighting for me.

We can hear the desperation. We can hear the focus she has on community service and public service, but we can also hear the view that she is being undercut by decisions we are making--or not making.

She also said something else that was pretty interesting. When we saddle these young people with loans, the average 4-year graduate in Ohio has about $27,000 in debt. When we pile more on Dorothy or somebody in Rhode Island or Vermont, it means they are less likely to buy a house, less likely to start a business, less likely to start a family. It is morally wrong to stand in their way or make it harder.

Think what it does to the economy too. I want people such as Dorothy to get an education without huge debt, to buy a home, to begin to provide and prosper and lift the whole community; people who are productive workers and who care about the community. We have no business taking that away from Dorothy and people like her and adding to her debt. That is why we have to do this first.

Will the Senator yield?

Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island is one of the few graduates from West Point in this body and served his country in so many ways and still does. But I think about Jack Reed when I think about what happened with the GI Bill after World War II. We want to help individual people with keeping these interest rates from doubling, but we know when we help lots of individual people we help society as a whole.

After World War II, literally millions of young men and women returned from fighting for our country, came back to the United States, and the government was farsighted enough in 1944 under President Roosevelt, who signed the GI Bill, to prepare for this huge wash of young men and women coming back from the war. We as a nation were smart enough back 65, 70 years ago to help millions of those young men and women one at a time with their education.

But here is what else it did: Those millions of students who benefited from the GI Bill gave so much to society. Perhaps our best times economically as a nation in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s came out of the GI Bill because when government helps in partnership to give opportunity to thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of people, it also helps the country as a whole, and that is part of our philosophy in public service in many ways.

So what these Stafford loans, these subsidized loans do, as do Pell grants--and we are seeing efforts to cut Pell grants by the House of Representatives too, which is just the stupidest thing ever in my mind because I don't understand the way some of them think--but when we provide opportunities for Stafford loans, subsidized loans, or Pell grants, it is helping people such as Dorothy and people in Rhode Island and Vermont. It is helping people in Mansfield and Toledo and Cleveland and Garfield Heights. I think it is one of those things that is hard to understand why we would not do this.

I wanted to ask Senator Reed a question, if I could. He explained on the Senate floor one day how Republicans have said they are for this now, that they don't want to double the interest rate--although I am not sure of that from some of their activities. The Senator from Rhode Island has talked about the way we want to pay for this versus the way they want to pay for this.

I know the Senator talked about closing tax loopholes, and they talked about sort of playing college students against women needing mammograms by cutting health care--if the Senator could explain that to my colleagues.

I thank the Senator.

I appreciate that explanation because this is a tax loophole that almost anybody who is fair-minded about this sees as a giveaway to some. They call it the Newt Gingrich-John Edwards tax loophole, to be bipartisan, where each of them benefited by tens of thousands of dollars. Again, they did not cheat; they did not break the law. They just took advantage of a tax loophole I would think everybody here would want to close because most people play it straight.

Their income is their income. They pay the Medicare tax on it. This is a case where they do not. We, I thought, believed in some fairness in taxation. But back to the individual people who will benefit from this. That is why Senator Reed is involved. That is why the Presiding Officer and Senator Sanders, I know, care about this issue.

Let me share, in closing, one last letter. This came from Courtney in Galloway, OH:

I, like many other students, always had a college savings

account. I remember putting birthday and holiday money in it

every year, and I always assumed that it would pay my way

through college.

Before I even made it to high school, though, my

grandmother fell gravely ill and my family had no other

choice but to use my college savings to pay for her hospital

bills, and eventually, the funeral.

Since then, paying for college has been my own

responsibility.

All the loans are in my name, and it is a burden that is

constantly hanging over my head. I am less than a year from

graduating--likely with honors--from The Ohio State

University with a degree in Social Work, but instead of being

excited and looking toward my future, I am constantly worried

about my loan debt and the possibility of rising interest

rates.

If I could interrupt the letter for a second, think about that. She is about to graduate. She wants to serve the country. She wants to serve her community. She clearly grew up with the right values--putting money aside, not spending it on things she wanted to do--when she was mowing lawns or babysitting or whatever she did in her teens, putting money aside and then spending it on her grandmother's medical expenses, and now she is worried.

Upon graduation--a wonderful moment in her life--she is anxious about what this all means. In the life of a social worker, she is not going to make a lot of money, obviously. That is what she wants to do. Yet she is going to be facing these bills for years to come.

She said:

I know that, as a future Social Worker, I will be not

making as much money as people in other professions, but

helping others is where my heart lies.

Unfortunately, I may be limited in the positions I can take

if my interest rates increase.

Maybe even unable to work within the populations I am truly

interested in helping--veterans, the homeless, and senior

citizens if the pay would render me unable to pay off my

student loans.

I am very passionate about my education, and hold no

grudges . . . for what needed to be done, but the threat of

rising student loan interest rates has affected me in a very

serious way, and I feel as though it is something that I have

no control over, which is a very heartbreaking feeling.

She may not be able to pursue the public service she wants to do as a social worker because her loan debt is so heavy. How dare people in this body make a decision by inaction or make a decision by doing nothing to heap more burden, put more debt on Courtney's shoulders. How dare they and how shameful it is that we simply cannot get bipartisan agreement--which we had 5 years ago with President Bush--to move forward on this and close a tax loophole to pay for it.

Do not put Courtney up against somebody who needs an immunization or a breast cancer screening or a prostate cancer screening. Close the tax loopholes, move forward on this, take the anxiety off of Courtney and others

as much as we can and do the right thing.

I yield.

Mr. President, I wish to continue to emphasize the remarks Senator Lautenberg made. I have not been here that long, but what I have seen happen in the last 2 or 3 years where judges appointed by the President of the United States are slow-walked or just ignored or blocked in this body is just outrageous.

In 2007, during my first month in office, I was presented with a Republican judge, coming from a Republican President, approved by my predecessor, Senator DeWine, and my colleague, Senator Voinovich. I met with her, talked with her, and I sent my approval to the Judiciary Committee. She was confirmed in the second or third month I was here, because I believe the President of the United States should have the right to choose judges as long as they are qualified. That is why I ask that we move forward on these judicial nominations.

In June 2010 U.S. district judge James Carr took senior status, creating a vacancy in the Northern District Court in Toledo, OH. That means that Ohioans seeking criminal or civil justice have to wait, which creates a backlog of too many cases. That is what we have seen happen.

In 2007 Senator Voinovich, a Republican, and I assembled a commission of distinguished Ohio lawyers to find the best candidate for the job. It wasn't in 2007; it was later than that. In 2009 there was a President from a different party, so we updated the commission. This commission, appointed by Senator Voinovich and myself, consisted of legal professionals from the Southern District of the State to suggest nominations for the vacant judgeships for the Northern District of the State. We did the reverse, with lawyers from the north choosing for the Southern District, to make sure there was not a conflict of interest. This commission was very bipartisan. One of them had a Republican majority, one of them had a Democratic majority.

Following Judge Carr's retirement, the commission made a selection. I interviewed three nominees, sent those names to the President, and then the President nominated Jeffery Helmick. Jeffery Helmick is a Toledo native, a brilliant and distinguished lawyer who has earned the respect of his colleagues for doing his job well. Yet for nearly 2 years his nomination has languished. For nearly 2 years he has had to place his defense practice and life on hold, awaiting Senate confirmation. This is no way to treat a public servant.

According to the U.S. Constitution, it is our job to confirm qualified nominees to serve on our Nation's highest court. But as of April of 2012--Senator Lautenberg mentioned this, and Senator Nelson from Florida will in a moment--there are 81 judicial vacancies throughout the United States. In my State of Ohio, the court is saying there is a judicial emergency. The nonpartisan Administrative Office of the Courts, the nonpartisan agency charged with running our Federal courts, recently declared a judicial emergency for the Northern District of Ohio.

Mr. Helmick has the enthusiastic support of all of the Federal judges in Toledo, including those appointed by Republican Presidents, was recommended by a bipartisan process created by Senator Voinovich and me, and yet his nomination is still stuck even though there is a judicial emergency and even though he was approved in a bipartisan manner by the Judiciary

Committee. The result is that litigants in the Northern District are experiencing delays in having their cases resolved. In too many cases, justice conferred--as the saying goes--can be just denied.

Our Nation's courts have been a beacon of hope--sometimes, not always--for the vulnerable and the powerless, but this confirmation delay clogs our courts, obstructs justice, and damages our democracy. Maybe some people are playing political games by slow-walking these judges. In the end, they might think it is cute, funny, and they might think they gain politically from it, but it does obstruct justice, it does clog our courts, and it does damage our democracy. So it is not cute, it is not funny, and it is not worthy of any political gains in this Chamber.

Jeffrey Helmick will make an outstanding judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. We need to confirm him, and we need to confirm him this month before Congress breaks.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the Export- Import Bank reauthorization's importance to strengthen manufacturing and creating jobs in places such as my home State of Ohio.

Ohio is the third leading manufacturing State in the country. Only Texas, which has twice our population, and California, which has three times our population, produce more goods than we do.

The Export-Import Bank's mission is simple: It facilitates exports and contributes to job creation in the United States. It does this through loans and guarantees of insurance, filling in gaps in trade financing at no ultimate cost to taxpayers. Yet, despite this record of success, exports and jobs are at stake because Congress cannot agree to Ex-Im reauthorization, in large part because there is a group of people in this body and down the hall in the House of Representatives who simply think the Federal Government should not have a role in much of anything.

The bank's lending authority is set to expire May 31, 17 days from now. We must act. The Export-Import Bank has been reauthorized by both Chambers, by both parties, decade after decade, and we know how important it is for job creation, but it has taken too long to get this reauthorization moving. While manufacturers wait, Congress has stalled. We cannot wait any longer.

We know that Ohio workers can compete with anyone in the world when the playing field is level. When we stamp the ``Made in Ohio'' label, it is a sign that an item was made with pride by some of the finest workers in the United States and some of the finest workers in our country.

We know that U.S. manufacturing is getting stronger due in no small part to increased exports with the help of the Ex-Im Bank. Ohio has had quicker increases in job growth than other States.

We know that the manufacturing sector nationally has gained back some number of jobs that it lost. As an example, from 1965 to 1998 or 1999, this country had roughly the same number of manufacturing jobs. It was a smaller percentage of GDP and a smaller percentage of the workforce but a pretty constant similar number of jobs in 1999 as we had in 1965. But in the decade after 1999, we lost between 3 and 4 million manufacturing jobs in this country.

Since 2010, almost every single month we have seen manufacturing jobs increase in Ohio, in the Presiding Officer's home State of North Carolina, and in State after State in this country. That is good, obviously, but too many people in my State are still out of work or underemployed. What will happen to Ohio workers in our growing manufacturing sector if we fail do what we should be doing here, if we fail to fund this critical resource?

Ohio's manufacturers have been able to increase their exports with the assistance and the assurance that the Ex-Im Bank provides. In Fremont, OH, workers at Crown Battery, an employee-owned company, make renewable energy systems. With the help of the Ex-Im Bank's short-term, multibuyer insurance policy, about $400,000 worth of Crown Battery's storage battery manufacturing equipment was exported to South Africa. Middletown Tube Works in Butler County in southwest Ohio exports tubular steel to Spain and Portugal with less risk because of the Ex-Im Bank. Before that support, Nook Industries in Cuyahoga County required international customers to pay cash in advance of every order, which is an average of 4- to 6-weeks. Now Nook Industries has major customers in places such as China, South Korea, and Israel because of Ex-Im Bank support.

Exporting is especially tough for small businesses. Large businesses need this less than the small company that makes things, that manufactures things. Less than 1 percent of the Nation's nearly 26 million small businesses export their products. Imagine if we can increase that only a little bit in percentage terms.

One of the most important resources to help small and medium-sized businesses--especially those that make things--boost their exports is the Ex-Im Bank. That is why the Ohio Manufacturers Association strongly supports its reauthorization. They said:

The Ex-Im Bank is the only tool that American manufacturers

have to counter the huge sums of export financing--many

hundreds of millions of dollars--that other countries and

other governments provide their exporters.

Tom Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists, told the Senate Banking Committee:

America's working families struggle in today's difficult

economy [and] have little patience for Beltway politics that

continue to stall a proven instrument of export growth and

job creation.

I hear from the head of the Ohio Manufacturers Association and I hear from small business owners who want to expand and gain access to foreign

markets but can't secure private financing due to the credit risk associated with some overseas investments.

Export-supported jobs linked to the manufacturing sector already account for an estimated 7 percent of our total private sector employment. More than one-fourth of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio depend on exports for their jobs.

In 2011 the bank worked with nearly 100 Ohio businesses to support more than $400 million in export sales. To renew the Bank's charter should be a cause that all Senators support just like the 25 times that the Senate unanimously reauthorized the agency since its establishment almost 80 years ago. It is a matter of American jobs and a matter of global competitiveness.

Some people who seem to oppose everything the Federal Government wants to do because of this philosophy that the Federal Government never does anything of use--forgetting Medicare, Social Security, clean drinking water, all that--even though the Senate has reauthorized this program 25 times, they are standing in the way and blocking it.

We faced a trade deficit with China of almost $300 billion in 2011, meaning that we imported about $800 million a day more than we exported to China. We know that China's export-import and development banks provide as much as $100 billion in export credits each year. That is more than three times as many new export credits as our U.S. Export- Import Bank.

It is time we continue fighting for and investing in American manufacturing. It is so important, like we do so well in Ohio, that we make things. It creates wealth, it creates a strong middle class, and it creates opportunity for our young people. It is time to end the delay and reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I understand that H.R. 5652 has been received from the House and is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that the majority leader be recognized; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

It is the majority leader's intention to resume the motion to proceed to the Export-Import Bank reauthorization bill, legislation particularly important to my State, tomorrow morning, and equally divide the first hour, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half.

Today we reached an agreement to complete action on the Export-Import Bank reauthorization. Senators should expect up to six votes as early as 2:15 tomorrow.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

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

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

Madam President, I want to join Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who just spoke very persuasively about the need to freeze interest rates for Stafford loans for college students in America. He also spoke, I thought very convincingly, about closing a tax loophole that has clearly been used to avoid--legally--taxes by lobbyists, consulting groups, lawyers--all of whom are using this tax loophole to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, in many cases. The case of former Senator John Edwards and his law firm--not like most law firms but in his law firm--and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, one a Democrat and one a Republican, have shown the size of this loophole and how it can turn into tens of thousands of dollars. I am not accusing either of these gentlemen of doing anything illegally--

only taking advantage of a loophole we should close.

I come to the floor to make the case how important these subsidized Stafford loans are to college students. In my State of Ohio--as in the State of the Presiding Officer, the State of North Carolina--we have hundreds of thousands of students using these Stafford subsidized loans; in Ohio, some 380,000; in North Carolina I assume it is not too far off that. Students have enjoyed, if that is the right word, 3.4 percent interest rates on their loans rather than something higher.

What is discouraging is that this was a bipartisan effort. In 2007, the year I came to the Senate, President Bush and Democrats, the majority in both Houses, joining with many of my Republican colleagues in this body and the House of Representatives, locked in the subsidized Stafford student loan rate of 3.4 percent for 5 years from 2007 until this July. That expires in July. It was bipartisan then; it should be bipartisan now. But a couple days ago the Republicans filibustered. I am hopeful today or whenever this next vote is taken they will not.

I am going to, for 3 or 4 minutes, read a small number of letters, stories I have gotten from students in my State of Ohio who have come to my Web site and told us their stories. I urge people in Ohio to come to this Web site, brown.senate.gov/collegeloanstories. Just tell us your story.

I am not so cynical, but I think when my colleagues start listening to people at home, listening to students--I was at Wright State College near Dayton the other day and the University of Cincinnati and Cuyahoga in Cleveland. I met with students and I listened to their stories. Several of them stood and talked about what these student loans mean. Already, the average student who graduates from an Ohio 4-year university graduates with debt of about $27,000. That means it is much harder for them to start a family, to buy a car, to buy a home, to start a business. That is why it is so important not to heap more burdens on them, put more debt on them.

I will close by reading three letters. Cody from Delphos, OH, northwest Ohio:

I graduated high school with the goal in mind to get my

doctorate in pharmacy. After five years of hard work I am 9

months of practice rotations away from achieving my goal.

Along with that achievement comes a paralyzing amount of

college debt from attending a private university.

In addition, I have hopes of doing an additional two years

of residencies after I graduate to specialize in critical

care/trauma, but since residencies pay less than half of a

pharmacists salary I may not be able to go further and reach

my goal of becoming a clinical pharmacist specialized in

critical care/trauma.

Help me reach my goals by keeping interest rates low and

helping create affordable means by which those from low

income families can attend college without have to accumulate

the debt I have had to.

Allow youth to reach their full potential and be able to

serve society in their best capacity by finding a solution to

the rising cost of an education.

Nonya from Wooster, OH, east of where I grew up in Mansfield, about 30 miles away, writes:

Going to College changed my life and my whole families

lives. The only reason I even considered going to college was

because my mom did. The only reason she was able to go was

student loans. And because my oldest daughter saw my mom and

I doing it she is now attending college.

My family had a rough beginning, my mother and I both

survived sexual abuse and the disease of addiction before

finding a solution. School has been our way out. My mother

now has a bachelors and is working as a licensed social

worker. I am on my way to a bachelors as well.

How could I in good conscience say to my daughter ``go to

college'' if I know she'll never be able to pay off her

loans. I have never had a job as long as I have had the one I

have today.

I am a student assistant at Wayne College and if it weren't

for the availability of school loans I would have never

stepped foot in the building that is now the center of my

world and my daughters.

We go to school to make a better life for ourselves . . . .

Rebecca from Lorain, where I lived for many years, near Lake Erie:

When I matriculated at Lawrence University, a private

liberal arts college in Appleton, Wisconsin, my family could

not afford to contribute more than a few hundred dollars a

year to my tuition, fees, and other expenses. I was Pell

grant eligible. I took out Stafford loans. I also took out a

private loan from my parents' credit union and committed to

the full number of hours of federal work-study that I was

eligible for. Even as a college freshman, I was deeply aware

that the Pell grant, Stafford loans, and federal work-study

programs were giving me access to an excellent education that

otherwise would have been beyond my reach.

I worked hard in my classes, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and

summa cum laude in two majors: Chemistry and English. I

worked hard in my co-curricular activities, editing the

college literary magazine and serving as president of the

campus feminist organization. I also worked hard in my on-

campus jobs: grading papers for the French department,

tutoring in the Writing Center, mixing reagents in the

Chemistry stockroom, and washing dishes in the student union

diner.

With the outstanding education I had obtained--and a

manageable amount of student loan debt to repay--I chose to

go to graduate school in Chemistry. I earned a Ph.D. from

Stanford University in 2003 and am now a tenured professor of

Chemistry and Biochemistry at Oberlin College in Oberlin, OH.

I teach bright young people who are interested in making the

world a better place. I also conduct research on ovarian

cancer detection that has been funded by the NIH. This is my

dream job, and it began with the access to an excellent

education.

It breaks my heart to think that if I were a high school

senior today, I might not have the same opportunities to

achieve. The Stafford loans, Pell grant, and federal work-

study programs helped me become the educated person I am

today.

These three letters were not different from the others. I just picked the top three my staff gave me from stories we have gotten because of our Web site. I will repeat the Web site: brown.senate.gov/ collegeloanstories.

This tells us about work ethic. It tells about opportunity.

I will illustrate it in one other way. I cannot do it as well as Nonya and Rebecca and Cody did, but we all remember, if we paid attention to our history, in the forties and fifties, the GI bill gave literally millions of young American men and women returning from serving their country the opportunity to go to school. What the GI bill did was help millions of individual Americans, one at a time. But what that did collectively is it raised all boats. It created a huge amount of prosperity for our country because all these people went to college.

A lot of these people bought homes. Colleges were growing and expanding, creating more jobs. These people started businesses. These people were productive workers. These people invented things because they had the education, from going to college.

With these Stafford loans, it is not just helping Cody and Rebecca and Nonya and students today, it is helping all of us as a society, whether one goes to college or not. Some people don't want to go to college. Fine. We have career centers and trade schools and community colleges to learn welding, to learn carpentry, to learn how to be a health care worker, to learn rad tech, whatever people want to do, or go to a 4-year college. Give them the opportunity because we don't just help millions of Americans or millions of individual young people, we help society as a whole when we do this.

I pray and beg my colleagues, please pass this, keep student loan rates manageable, interest rates manageable so we can have more Rebeccas and Nonyas and Codys in our country. We will all benefit.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.