Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nate Converse, Max Ernst, and Trent Blomberg of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pooled Retirement Plans: Closing the Retirement Plan Coverage Gap for Small Businesses.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Sarah Cupp of the committee staff on (202) 224-5441.

Will the Senator yield for a question.

I just want to ask--I am sorry, I couldn't see the chart from the other side, so I came here. On the undergraduate student, 3.66, 64 percent, for how many years does that hold, that 3.66 percent? For how many years?

Just 1 year.

And what does the CBO project the rates will do in the next 10 years?

I have a statement to make but not a question.

If we are going to get into a colloquy, that is fine.

Will the Senator yield?

My friend from West Virginia made a statement a few minutes ago that resonated with me. He said we are trying to get the market rates because we always had the rates.

When I first went to college in 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961, I borrowed money under this program. It came into being in 1958, so 1959 was the first year I borrowed money. It was called the National Defense Education Act or the Eisenhower bill. I went back and looked to see what the 10-year Treasury note was at that time for those 3 years that I borrowed. The 10-year Treasury note at that time ranged between 4.2 percent and about 4.8 percent. I borrowed money at 2 percent.

I say to my friend, that is not a market rate. Not only did I borrow the money, but all the time I was in college I paid no interest charges. I spent 5 years in the military with no interest charges. I then went to law school--3 years in law school--with no interest charges. Then I had a 1-year grace period after I graduated from law school with no interest charges. For all those years the interest rate clock never started ticking.

Everybody.

That is right. The reason I raise that is, Why were we so special? Why was my generation so special that this country was willing to subsidize my education, but for these young people here we are saying: No, no, you have to pay interest rates?

We made a commitment at that time to invest in a generation of young Americans so they wouldn't have a huge amount of debt hanging over their heads.

I object.

I know Senator Stabenow has an important meeting to get to, and I will yield to her in just second.

I just want to respond to my friend from North Carolina as to why I objected since I don't believe in all of these reservations for objections. Either you object or you don't, and there is a time to explain that later on.

I wanted to explain why I objected. If we vote for cloture at noon on this underlying bill, then what the Senator from North Carolina wants, they can add as an amendment. They can offer that as an amendment to the bill. The bill will be open to any amendments anybody has.

So the reason I object is because we have a bill, and it is under regular order. We have cloture and the bill is open for amendments. So the Senator from North Carolina or Tennessee or West Virginia or anybody else can offer any amendments they want, and that is the way the regular order ought to proceed.

With that, I yield the floor.

I know we are still on our time; is that correct?

I understand Senator Hoeven wanted to take 5 minutes.

That would be fine.

Well, Madam President, I think we have had a good debate and colloquies on this bill. At noon we are going to be voting, as I understand it, on a cloture motion on whether we are going to have a bill on the floor. That is all we are saying: Will we have a bill on the floor to which amendments can be offered by anybody?

I say to my friends on the Republican side, if they have an idea--and some of them do--that has some Democratic support--and there is some of that--the best way to flush this out and to see whether the Senate as a whole agrees is to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill at noon. That means the bill is on the floor. That means it is open for amendment. That means if Senator Burr wants to offer an amendment that incorporates his whole bill, he can do that and we can have a debate on that. And I would say to my friends on the other side, it only takes 51 votes, not 60. It only takes 51 votes to adopt an amendment.

It seems to me the proper way, if you want to proceed on this, is to vote for cloture. That brings the student loan bill to the floor. If my friends from North Dakota or Tennessee or North Carolina or wherever-- or my friend from West Virginia on this side--if they want to offer amendments, do so. We can debate it. And then it only takes 51 votes. I do not know why they would be opposed to voting for cloture on the underlying bill because that moves us to a point where 51 votes is controlling. So I hope we will get the 60 votes necessary to move ahead with this very important bill and this issue.

A lot has been said here this morning, and my friend, I think, from West Virginia said there are a lot of numbers floating around and there are a lot of charts floating around. Everybody has a chart on this and numbers on that. No one is trying to befuddle anyone, and no one is deliberately trying to mislead anyone. It is just that when you get involved in an issue such as this, it is complicated, it is very complicated, because if you do a little bit on this one thing--let's say on a cap--then it does something on other interest rates. If you do something on consolidation, all these things bounce around. You can look at what an interest rate would be today, but you do not know what it is going to be tomorrow or what it is going to be next year or the year after. All we have to go on is CBO estimates, Congressional Budget Office estimates.

I will be forthright. I will say honestly, I can love CBO one day and hate them the next because of the way they figure things, and sometimes it is almost inscrutable how they figure things. But, nonetheless, those are the rules we have to sort of play under here. So we have to look at what the CBO scores are and how they score all of the various proposals.

My friend from North Carolina had all of his charts out there and different things about interest rates and all that. I asked the question: How long does that 3.66 percent interest rate last? He was forthright. He said 1 year. But then he went on to talk about what would happen in the future.

Well, here is yet another chart that I present for the Senate. Their bill is S. 1241. That is the Burr-Manchin-Alexander et al. bill. So what we did was we plotted it out as to what would happen in the outyears. As you can see, if you look at this line about right here on the chart: 6.8 percent. That is where the student loan interest rate is today because on July 1 it doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. And 6.8 percent is permanent law. Madam President, 6.8 percent is permanent law, so that is where it is today.

If you look at S. 1241, the Burr-Manchin et al. bill, they are quite correct that in the first 2 or 3 years the interest rates are lower than 6.8 percent. That is why I asked the question. He mentioned 3.66 percent down here on the chart. That is good for next year. But we can only go by CBO estimates, so we asked CBO: What are your projections of the 10-year Treasury notes? That is what we have to go by. If you use that, and you look at what their bill proposes, you will see almost like a classic bait and switch. For the first couple, 3 years, interest rates are lower than 6.8 percent. But beginning in 2016--2\1/2\ years from now--both the graduate Stafford loans and the PLUS loans go way above 6.8 percent--up to 8.6 percent and 9.6 percent.

If someone looked at that, they would say: Well, for the first couple, 3 years that might be OK, but what about these students out here? How about these young students getting ready to go to college? They and their families are paying these high interest rates. That is why we heard from so many student groups saying: That is not a good deal. We do not want just a good deal for us for a couple of years and then stick the students in the future with higher interest rates.

Then for the undergraduate Stafford loans--which right now are at 6.8 percent--the Burr-Manchin and others bill goes up to 7.1 percent. You might say that is not much of a difference, but it is more.

So in every single case, by 2018, the interest rates under the Republican bill are higher--higher--than if we stuck with current law, which is 6.8 percent. That is a fact. They cannot dispute that unless they want to say they do not want to use CBO figures. But that is what we have to apply. I have asked--I make the request again--any of the supporters of S. 1241, if you disagree with this chart, please come to the floor and tell us why this is not right. I challenge anyone to come here and tell me why this is wrong, if they think it is wrong, and why they think it is wrong. But that is exactly what will happen under their bill.

It seems we have a couple of courses here. As I said, the first thing is to do what we can to keep interest rates low, and then to address this in a comprehensive fashion.

The bill before us, the bill we are going to vote cloture on, is just a 1-year extension at 3.4 percent. Again, that has a cost. CBO told us what the cost was. So we had a pay-for, as we say around here a pay- for--how do you pay for it--by closing a loophole in the IRAs, the individual retirement accounts. As we developed those, those were to be used for retirement. But a current loophole in the law allows very wealthy people to build up a retirement account in an IRA and use it as an estate planning gimmick.

So millionaires, billionaires can pass on millions in than IRAs to their heirs without paying taxes for years, if not decades. That was never what IRAs were for. That is a loophole. It has to be closed. I think in anything coming before this body in the way of a tax reform, I can assure you that loophole will be closed. So we are saying, for 1 year, we will close it and use the savings from that to keep student loans at 3.4 percent for 1 year.

Am I saying we have to keep student loans at 3.4 percent forever? No, I am not. What I am saying is that this whole area of student loans and interest rates is one piece of a jigsaw puzzle, the jigsaw puzzle being how are we going to do two things; one, make college more affordable in the future and how are we going to address the $1 trillion-plus that is in student loans out there right now. This is just one part of that.

When we take one part out of that jigsaw puzzle, it affects everything else. That is why I have argued for a long time that our committee, the HELP Committee, needs to address this in the Higher Education Act reauthorization. The Higher Education Act expires this year. So we have to reauthorize it. My good friend Senator Alexander is the ranking member on the committee. We have already had discussions about the Higher Education Act. I believe this is the proper way to proceed, so we can have experts come

in and tell us: OK. If you jiggle this number a little bit, if you do this on student loans, how does that affect Pell grants. If you do something on Pell grants, how does that affect college work study.

All of these things fit together. We need to address a comprehensive measure on college affordability, on making sure college costs are transparent for our students and their families. Comparisons. Why does one course of study at one college cost $200 a credit hour and another college the same course costs $400 a credit hour? Why is that? Should parents not have a good comparison chart? What can we do to encourage colleges to have a better graduation rate in 4 years or 5 years? Secretary Duncan has talked a lot about promoting an idea of having high schools graduate kids that after 4 years they can get an associate's degree. If they study hard and do advanced placement courses, they might even graduate from high school or shortly thereafter with an associate's degree.

These are interesting ideas. We need to pursue them. But if we take this out, if we take out the student loans, it sort of messes up the rest of the formulas. That is why I think we should extend the 3.4 percent for 1 year, pay for it with the closing that loophole for 1 year, and let our committee do its job. We have good people on the committee. Senator Alexander, Senator Burr are on the committee. We have thoughtful, smart people who understand this.

I think generally we work pretty good together on the committee. This issue now of the student loans, it reminds me of all my time in the Senate, now marking 39 years. It seems that every time we rush to judgment, we have a deadline, that is when mistakes are made. Need I go any further than to talk about the sequester?

It is a horrible mistake. But faced with a deadline, we have to do all of this, then we rush to judgment on something such as this. I think we made a terrible mistake on that.

So I plead with my fellow Senators to put this over for 1 year. Let our committee do its work, so we can address the whole issue of college affordability, college completion rates, and how we address also the issue of the $1 trillion that is hanging out there. That may be more of an issue for the Finance Committee, but there may be partial jurisdiction for both the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee.

Again, last year, we extended the 3.4 percent for 1 year, to July 1 of this year. I know I have heard some say we did that for 1 year and we did not address the issue. But, again, I remind my fellow Senators that last year was an election year, campaigning, we were not here that much, had a big election in November, then we had all of these budget things facing us at the end of the year.

With the budget problems we had earlier this year, there just was not time to do anything, plus the fact that the Higher Education Act does expire this year. So it is incumbent upon us to address the issue of higher education. That is where this belongs. I would again hope we would extend the 3.4 percent for 1 year and let our committee do its work.

I urge my colleagues to support the 1-year extension. My friends on the other side, they say they want a long-term solution. I have no problems with that. But let's do a long-term solution based upon a rational approach, one that comprehensively looks at all of the issues surrounding college affordability. The way to do that, as I said, is through the committee's work.

There was one other point that was made this morning that I wish to address myself; that is, consolidation. Everybody thinks consolidation is such a hot deal. I have pointed this out before. For example, we took a $41,000 Stafford loan borrowed in school--$41,000--and used that as the baseline. Then we said, under current law, the student would pay $21,716 in interest over 10 years. Under the Republican bill, S. 1241, they would pay $28,607. Under consolidation, they pay $69,000.

So consolidation is not the big deal people think it is. Now here is one that is even more drastic. Again, the $41,000 in Stafford loans and $30,000 in PLUS loans borrowed by a graduate student, under current law, $43,760 is what they would pay back. Under S. 1241, they would pay $52,498. But if they consolidated it, they would pay $148,000--$43,000 to $148,000. That is under consolidation. So you wonder why students do not consolidate? Because they realize they are going to be paying back three and four times as much in interest charges than if they never consolidated.

The other point I wish to make on consolidation is you only get to do it one time--one time. So let's say that you graduate from college. You decide I want lower monthly payments. I want to stretch it out for a longer period of time. You do that. You consolidate. Then let's say you want to go to graduate school. You cannot consolidate after that. That is it. You are through.

So if you have to borrow money at higher rates and stuff, you cannot consolidate those later on. I think that is what some of my friends forget. You can only use consolidation one time--one time. So consolidation and having a cap or whatever it is on consolidation is certainly not any kind of an answer to these high interest rate payments students are making.

Again, what we are looking for--I know people want to have a long- term solution. They want to get to something that is revenue neutral. I understand that. I hope if we get cloture and we can move to the bill, Republicans can offer their amendments. As I said, it only takes 51 votes to adopt an amendment. But if not, then let's just extend this for 1 year. I do not think that is too much to ask, to extend it for 1 year and let us do this in a comprehensive fashion.

I would hope that would be what we would do and not double these interest rates on students right now. I think both sides agree on that, even under S. 1241, next year interest rates will be 3.66 percent. I am all for that. On 1241, they want to keep interest rates at 3.66 percent next year. That is fine. That is pretty close to 3.4 percent. The problem is what happens in the outyears, as I have pointed out.

If both sides agree that in the next year interest rates should be down around here at 3.6 percent for the undergraduate loans, 3.4 percent, 3.6 percent, not a heck of a lot of difference. Why do we not just extend the 3.4 percent for that year and then fix this in the Higher Education Act? I would agree. They want to keep it at 3.66 percent for 1 year, fine. But there is not that much difference between 3.4 and 3.66 percent.

I think what we all agree on is in the next year, interest rates should not go up--should not go up. Where we are not agreeing is on a long-term fix. Again, if we cannot agree on a long-term fix, then at least let's do no harm. Let's extend the 3.4 percent for 1 year and take care of the long-term solution in the Higher Education Act reauthorization, which we can have on the floor sometime next spring.

With that, I again ask my colleagues to vote for cloture on the bill. Let's extend 3.4 percent for 1 year and let our committee do its work.

I yield the floor and reserve whatever time we may have remaining.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I take the floor today to follow up on what my good friend and colleague Senator Reed from Rhode Island just spoke about; that is, the looming interest rate hike on student loans that is confronting us in this country.

To recap a little bit, in 2002 the Congress passed a fixed rate. We had variable rates before, but it passed a fixed rate on student loans of 6.8 percent. In 2007 it was lowered. That lasted for about 5 years, and then it was going to go back up to the fixed rate of 6.8 percent last year. The Congress passed a 1-year extension of that at 3.4 percent. It is that 1-year extension which expired on July 1 of this year. So if the Congress does nothing, the interest rates go back up to 6.8 percent.

In the midst of all of this, a lot of ideas have been floating around about what to do on student loans and the interest rates. Well, I think we have to keep in mind that if we go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, that is a doubling. More than 7.2 million college students will be required to pay an average of $1,000 more in interest per loan if we let it go back to 6.8 percent. Again, that is real money for our Nation's students.

Student loan debt currently exceeds $1 trillion. It is second only to mortgage debt in the United States, and it is higher than credit card debt. The average student now graduates with more than $26,000 in student loan debt. So now is really not the time to make them pay even more.

Now, luckily, we again have a window of time to act before the doubling causes any real harm. It doubled on July 1, but we had the Fourth of July week, so if we were to again extend the 3.4 percent for another year, it would do no harm. It would do no harm to anyone.

That is why I am urging my colleagues to support S. 1238, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013. This responsible, fully paid for legislation, introduced by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Hagan, Senator Franken, myself, and many others, is a viable solution to keeping student loan rates affordable for our middle-class students and families struggling to afford college.

I might add that this bill is supported by 49 student, youth, consumer, civil rights, and educational organizations across the country. Here is a letter they sent to Leader Reid and Senator McConnell dated June 28 to support S. 1238. They said:

We applaud this bill, which creates a workable solution to

maintaining current low rates while Congress seeks to

reauthorize the Higher Education Act to reach a comprehensive

solution to the student loan crisis that is good for

students. We expect a vote on S. 1238 on July 10, 2013,

allowing the proposal to take effect in time to protect

incoming and returning students this fall.

That is what is happening tomorrow. Tomorrow we will vote on cloture on this bill--cloture, so that then we can get an up-or-down vote on whether we are going to extend the 3.4-percent interest rates until next July. I will in a moment say why that is so important.

The letter goes on to say:

Many of the other proposals being discussed would result in

even higher costs to students than if interest rates were

simply allowed to double.

That is, to go to 6.8 percent.

The bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act put forth by

Senators Manchin, Burr, Coburn, Alexander, King and Carper

would drive up borrower costs by $1 billion and tie interest

rates to the market without a cap to protect students. This

proposal would pay down the deficit on the backs of students,

trading national debt for student debt. It is unacceptable to

use student loans as a vehicle for deficit reduction,

especially when the Federal Government is projected to make

$51 billion on student loans just this year.

So that will be the vote tomorrow.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter, along with the list of the organizations supporting the 1-year extension, be printed at this point in the Record.

That is really the vote tomorrow. Are we going to keep 3.4 percent or are we going to allow it to double? That is the essence of the vote tomorrow.

There are a lot of different ideas floating around here about what to do and how to do this, but in just about every single case, every one of those bills, if you project out over the next couple of years, will raise interest rates higher than 6.8 percent. So, again, that is why extending it for 1 year is so important.

The proper place to address this issue is in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. That expires this year. Our committee will be having hearings. We have had some already. We are going to have more this fall. We expect to be able to put together a reauthorization bill for early next year. This is where it belongs. This is where the student loan provision belongs--in the Higher Education Act. Here is why. College affordability is more than just what your loans are costing you; college affordability also has to do with the tuitions being charged by colleges. Why are the tuitions what they are? It also has to do with the lack of transparency from one college to another. What do courses here cost? What do courses there cost?

What is built into that cost per course hour, for study hour at this college compared to this other college?

There are a lot of other costs that go into college affordability other than just the cost of student loans. So to separate out a student loan and treat it as some kind of a separate entity is to kind of ignore all of the other things that affect the cost of college education. That is why it really needs to be part of a comprehensive solution, including Pell grants. Maybe we want to change some of the structure of Pell grants. Maybe we want to take a look at exactly what it is that we as a society want to do in terms of making college more affordable. What kind of interest rate base do we want? Do we want a rate based on the 91-day T-bill, which we have had in the past, or, as others are proposing now, do we want to go to a 10-year T-note rate? What does that mean? That has never been fully fleshed out. That only comes out through hearings conducted by the committee. Should it be based on the 3-month Treasury note? There are all kinds of different ideas floating around, and no one really knows what is the best solution.

I pointed out the necessity for a cap on these loans. I think about my own experience when I started college in 1958 when there wasn't such a program. But in 1959 and after that we had what was called the Eisenhower loan program, the National Defense Education Act. I went to a window at Iowa State University and I borrowed money. I borrowed money at 2 percent. I recently looked up the interest rate during that period of time, the 10-year Treasury note at that time, in 1959, 4.43 percent, 4.12 percent, 3.88, 3.95--all the years I was in college. Yet I borrowed money at 2 percent. So our government, our representatives, decided it was worth it for America to subsidize the loans I had, not charging the 10-year Treasury note but actually half of that--almost half of that. Think about that.

Not only did our society, our government, say: We want to have a fixed rate of 2 percent no matter what the market rate is, all the time I was in college--when I was a sophomore, junior, senior--there were no interest charges. The interest rate clock did not run. Well, then I went in the military for 5 years. During the 5 years I spent in the military, there was no interest rate clock. I then got out of the military and went to law school. I spent 3 years in law school--no interest rate clock. Then after I got out of law school, I had a 1-year grace period of no interest rate. So add it up--almost 10 to 12 years that I had no interest rate charges. Not until after I was out of law school for 1 year did the interest rate clock start to run. Then I had to pay back the loans.

That is what our society, our government, our people decided to do for me and for students of our generation in the late fifties and sixties and seventies. That is what they decided to do. Now we hear, well, no, now we have to go to a market rate. We have to go to a Treasury note of 10 years plus something.

I only talk about this to show the contrast between what our country was willing to do for students of my generation and what we are trying to do for students of this generation. We are going to sock them with higher interest rates. That is why student debt is so high. That is why it exceeds credit card debt in this country--because we got away from understanding that subsidized rate was an investment in the future of our country. It was an investment in getting kids through college and not putting a mountain of debt on their heads so that when they got out, they could get married and raise families, start to make money and buy good consumer items such as cars and homes and all kinds of things rather than paying back their debts for the next 10 to 20 years. So we have gotten away from that.

These are the kinds of things we have to kind of think about as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act. What is it that we are willing to do to invest in this new generation of students in terms of getting them an affordable college education?

In moving forward, I appreciate the efforts of others who have come forward with ideas, but there is still a divide here. Here is the divide. I think those of us in our caucus, in the Democratic caucus, have said we have two key principles we want to uphold: Any deal on interest rates should not reduce the deficit on the backs of students. We should not trade national debt for student debt. No. 2, we need to keep in place an interest rate cap--an interest rate cap--as a key consumer protection to shield students from exorbitant rates in the future.

I have the highest respect for our President. I served with him here; he was on our committee. I only wish that perhaps they had talked to us a little bit before they came out with their proposal, but President Obama came out with a proposal on student loans. He was the first President--not Democratic, but the first President, Democrat or Republican--to propose going from a 91-day T-bill rate to a 10-year Treasury note. No other President ever suggested doing that.

Secondly, no President since 1958 has advocated removing the cap. President Obama, in his proposal, proposed removing the cap.

I believe it is safe to say our caucus has said no, we are not going to do that. We are not going to lift this key consumer protection of having an interest rate cap. If we are going to go to a 10-year Treasury note, then what is it that we do? Do we do it as they did for me where they subsidize it below it? Do we add something onto it, and how much do we add onto it?

Again, we have, as I said, two key items. Interest rates should not reduce the deficit on the backs of students, and we need to keep in place an interest rate cap as a key consumer protection.

I might point out, this has happened before. We had an interest rate cap in the 1990s when we had a variable rate. The cap was at 8.25 percent. Five times in the 1990s interest rates went above that. The cap protected students five times.

That is why the bill that has been put up by the Republican side, S. 1241, fails to meet both those principles. Their bill, like the House GOP bill and S. 1003, is worse for students over the long term than if we let rates double. S. 1241 would raise nearly $1 trillion by charging students higher interest rates over 10 years, using net revenue for deficit reduction. This bill lacks an interest rate cap, an essential protection for students, as I said, that has been in place since 1958.

According to the CBO projections of the 10-year Treasury note--and that is what we have to live with, the CBO projections--under the proposal of S. 1241, which I think Senator Alexander

and others have put forward, graduate students relying on Stafford and PLUS loans will see higher interest rates starting in 2016, right here.

I saw a card about this that said under this bill the graduate student loans would be 5.21 percent. That is true here. Then it goes up in 2014, 2015, and then in 2016 it goes above the fixed rate of 6.8 percent and keeps going up to 8.6 percent from then on.

Students understand this. They looked at this and said: Well, gee, here, this is kind of like bait and switch. We get a couple, 3 years here where they are lower, and from then on everything is higher for us. We don't want this.

By 2018, on the undergraduate loans, subsidized and unsubsidized loans, it is at 7.1 percent. It is even more than the 6.8 percent that is in permanent law.

Again, I repeat, we have always had an interest rate cap. For as long as we have had student loans, we have had an interest rate cap. Even when we had a variable interest rate from 1992 to 2006, as I pointed out, five times we bumped up against that cap, so students were protected.

I have read in S. 1241 the authors stated there is a cap. Does this plan have a cap? It says yes.

There is a consolidation cap which we already have in law, by the way. We already have a consolidation cap in law. They keep it. But a consolidation cap is not a substitute for an interest rate cap. It is apples and oranges. One is a repayment mechanism. That is a consolidation cap. The other is a consumer protection called an interest rate cap. A consolidation cap is not a real cap.

Look at it this way. Let's say interest rates go to 10 percent, 11 percent, 12 percent. It is not unheard of. We have had that in the recent past. A student is in college, and that student takes out loans at 10 percent, 11 percent, or 12 percent when they are a freshman, a sophomore, junior, or senior. During the time they are in school, interest is accruing on their loan at 10 percent, 11 percent, or 12 percent. They can't consolidate until after they graduate. Then they say they can consolidate all of their loans at an interest rate that is equal to 8.25 percent or the weighted interest rate of their loans, whichever is lower.

I pointed out that under S. 1241, the Republicans' bill, if you took out a basic loan under the basic program we have had for 10 years, at the maximum, under present law, you would pay back about $21,000 in interest and payments. Under S. 1241 you would pay back $28,000, $7,000 more. Get this--for the same loan under consolidation you pay back $69,000.

Consolidation--and that is why a lot of students aren't consolidating, because they know they are going to pay a lot more in interest charges for a longer period of time. Think about a 15-year mortgage versus a 30-year mortgage on your house.

Maybe a student would say: OK, I will consolidate. My monthly payments will be lower, but the total amount I pay back will be three, four, five times more than what it would be if I don't consolidate.

Consolidation may be useful to some students as a repayment mechanism, but it is not the same as a cap on interest rates.

The bottom line is that an interest rate cap is the only way to ensure all borrowers are shielded from exorbitant rates in the future, and consolidation is simply not a substitute.

Let's take a look at the base rate in S. 1241. That is the 10-year Treasury note. I asked my staff to take the provisions of the Alexander bill, S. 1241, and let's go back in time. What would students have been paying in interest rates? I looked at 1980, 1990, and 2000, every 10 years. Under S. 1241, undergraduate Stafford is 13.31, graduate Stafford is 14.86, and 15.86 on the PLUS loans. For 1990, undergraduate Stafford is 10.4, graduate Stafford is 11.9, and PLUS loans are 12.9. In 2000, undergraduate Stafford is 7.88, graduate Stafford is 9.43, and PLUS loans are 10.43. All of them are above the 6.8 percent that is permanent law right now, permanent in every single case because there is no cap. We have seen in the past 10-year Treasury notes as high as 14 percent.

There is no cap, so you take the 10-year Treasury note plus 1.85 percent or 2 percent, and you can see where students without a cap are going to be paying a lot more money. The 10-year Treasury note is already on the rise as the economy gets stronger. We know those interest rates are going up and that is what CBO tells us. Without a cap in place, students are highly vulnerable to this.

Again, I want to go back to this chart here. This is why consolidation is something students need to think about. This is $41,000 in Stafford loans borrowed over 2 years by a graduate student enrolling in 2018. Under current law, they would pay back $21,716 in interest payments. Under S. 1241, they would pay more, $28,607.

But then they say: Well, you can consolidate. If you consolidate, you are going to pay $69,185. Look at the difference.

As I say, a consolidation cap is just a way to stretch out your repayments, which means you are going to pay a lot more money over time. I am not certain that is what we wish to do to students over the next 20 to 30 years, burden them with even more debt for over 20 to 30 years.

Again, as I have said before, I think S. 1241 is not good for our students, it is not good for the middle class, and for America's competitiveness in the future. I think we ought to take the time to do it right.

People say: Well, gee, we had an extension of this last year until this year and you didn't do anything, so we should not extend it again. There are probably a lot of reasons why Congress didn't do it. Last year was an election year. We were gone a lot of time in the fall for people to campaign for reelection for both the House and the Senate, and it was a Presidential election year. Nothing was done, basically, from October on.

Then there was the whole deficit reduction measure that had everybody tied up in knots, and the sequester. We were trying to work that out the first of the year, and the budget bill, getting that done. There are a lot of reasons why this was not high on the agenda. There was a lot of significant legislation going on here, plus, as I said, last year was an election year and a campaign year.

What is different about next year is this: The Higher Education Act expires this year. We need to reauthorize it. We need to reauthorize it in a timely fashion.

As I said, this whole issue of student loans is only one part of it. There are a lot of other parts, such as college accountability. What are their graduation rates? What is their charge for per-course study hour? How do they figure that amount of money? What are colleges doing to keep tuition rates low? What are States doing to support higher education?

We have had a number of hearings in our committee already on the increasing cost of college education and what is causing it. There are a lot of different factors, but the one factor that overrode them all, the one consistent, overriding factor of why college costs are going up, Federal costs--why Federal costs of college education are going up--is because over the last 20 to 30 years States were reducing their support for higher education.

State legislatures have figured this out. They figured out that if our State government doesn't put more money into higher education, students are going to get Pell grants. They will get these loans. The Federal Government will back them up. What has happened is States have reduced their support for higher education and shifted it to the Federal Government.

What should be the States' responsibility in higher education? What should be our partnership with the States in supporting higher education? That is, again, an issue for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and what we are going to do about student loans in the future is a part of that.

That is why I argued for an extension for 1 year, because we can look at it in a comprehensive, systemic way as to what we ought to do about college affordability. This is why I say the best course of action to follow right now, both for students, for middle-class families, and for our country, for getting a better higher education bill that addresses all of this--the best thing to do is a 1-year-more extension.

As Senator Reed said earlier, there is a loophole in the law that deals with individual retirement accounts. IRAs were meant for retirement, but now

there is a loophole in the law that allows millionaires and billionaires to take IRAs and give them to a younger generation, which they then take over a period of years--and a lot of times escape paying taxes for years and maybe even for decades. Everyone agrees it is a loophole. It was never intended to be there for IRAs. By closing that loophole, we can pay for the 1-year extension at 3.4 percent. It seems to me the students need this loophole in IRAs more economic-wise than the top one-tenth of 1 percent in our country. So that is why I think we just need to take a deep breath and quit trying to rush to judgment.

There has been more bad legislation in my 39 years here that has happened because we wanted to rush to judgment on a deadline rather than taking the time to go through the committee structure, having the hearings, working things out on both sides of the aisle through our committee, and then bringing decent legislation to the floor.

Quite frankly, I think we can point to the immigration bill. That is what was done there. This immigration bill didn't just pop up on the floor. It went through a long process in committee, with hearings and witnesses and debate and amendments.

That is what we need to do here. Don't rush to judgment. I am afraid if we rush to judgment the losers will be the students and middle-class families and, quite frankly, our economy in the future if we move to a system that is going to cause higher and higher interest rates way out into the future for students just entering college.

So I plead with my colleagues to support the cloture vote tomorrow to give us this 1-year extension. Let the committee do its work properly and bring a proper bill to the floor that will be open for amendment. People will be able to amend it at that time. I believe that is the deliberate, thoughtful, and the responsible way to address this issue-- not just to vote something out that is separate and apart from everything else that adds to the burden of student debt in this country.

So I plead with my colleagues to do the responsible thing and extend the 3.4 percent for 1 year, and we will address this next year in the Higher Education Act.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, on Monday, July 1, 2013, Joseph C. McQuaid was laid to rest, with full military honors, in the Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver, CO.

A proud World War II veteran, Joseph ``Big Joe'' McQuaid will rest beside his brother John ``Hootcher'' McQuaid, also a World War II veteran. Joe was one of the most unique, memorable persons I have known in my lifetime. He was also my brother-in-law.

Joe was born on March 16, 1919 in the family farmhouse near Stuart, IA. A proud Irishman, Joe always noted that his birthday was one day before St. Patrick's Day. Joe, his two brothers, and sister were born and raised in a loving, but very poor, family. His father ``Willie'' was a self-taught, accomplished musician, playing the fiddle and piano in local bands around Iowa.

From an early age, Joe was known as ``Big Joe'' because he was a big bear of a man, standing 6 feet 4 inches and tipping the scale around 240 pounds, all muscle and bone. He used to show off his strength by tearing phonebooks and decks of cards in half as if they were pieces of paper. This always impressed a lot of young kids.

Joe also liked to balance heavy, unwieldy objects, such as lawnmowers, on his chin. It wasn't only heavy objects he could balance. He is the only person I have ever seen who could balance a straw broom on his nose. He could entertain a group of kids for hours by doing his balancing tricks.

When the Great Depression hit the Midwest, Joe's family, like so many others, was in dire economic straits. So Joe, at the age of 16, went to work in the Civilian Conservation Corps, the CCC. The legal age was 18, but because of Joe's size and the poverty at home, Joe said he was 18 and thus joined the CCC. Young men left home, lived in CCC camps, worked on building dams and dikes, cleared roads in winter, cleaned up after floods, and created State parks and recreation areas. CCC camps were run in a semimilitary fashion.

Joe worked at the CCC camps for 3 years and was paid $36 a month. As Joe remembered, he sent $30 home and kept $6 for himself. He often said the CCC was President Roosevelt's best program.

The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Joe went right down to the recruiting office and signed up for military duty. He joined the Navy and spent most of the war years as a Boatswain Mate First Class on destroyer escorts, escorting troop ships and cargo ships the United States to Russia, England, and North Africa.

His ship, the USS Marchand, sank several German U-boats and rescued survivors of cargo and troopships sunk by enemy torpedoes. Joe was present at Normandy on D-day, again protecting the troopships and big cruisers from enemy submarines.

After the war in Europe ended, Joe was sent to the Pacific as a Boatswain Mate on a troopship headed to the Philippines. During his voyage, Joe's ship was attacked by Japanese kamikaze planes. As the acting Chief Boatswain Mate, Joe got all the anti-aircraft guns manned, taking a 50 caliber mount himself. They brought down all the enemy aircraft, and not one hit the ship. Joe remembered how one crashed in the water so close that ocean spray and parts of the aircraft landed on the ship's deck.

Sometime after that, on their way to the Philippines, Joe ordered-- through his boatswain pipe--all hands on deck for an important announcement from the captain. The captain said that after dropping two atom bombs on Japan that wiped out two cities, President Harry S Truman said the Japanese surrendered and the war was over. There was unrestrained cheering and backslapping among the troops and sailors. Joe asked the captain if he should use his boatswain pipe to call them to order, and the captain said ``No, no, let them go.'' They refueled at sea, and headed back to Honolulu.

After nearly 4 straight years at sea, dodging and sinking U-boats in the North Atlantic, surviving kamikaze attacks in the Pacific, ``Big Joe'' was back in Iowa with a chest full of medals and his beloved boatswain pipe.

For his life thereafter, Joe could keep you entranced with his war stories and what shipboard life was like in the frigid waters of the North Atlantic.

Joe was so proud of his service and his fellow World War II comrades. He was truly one of the ``Greatest Generation'' of young Americans.

Joe passed away on January 31, 2013, with his loving wife June by his side. He was just about 2 months shy of his 94th birthday.

Up to his 93rd birthday, Joe always marched every year in the Veteran's Day parade wearing his original World War II Navy blues, a white sailor's cap jauntily placed on his head, a chest full of ribbons and medals, and his cherished boatswain's pipe hung around his neck. At age 88 he participated in one of the honor flights from Denver to Washington, DC, for World War II veterans to see the World War II Memorial.

After my mother died and Joe had married my sister Sylvia, I went to live with them, and Joe became almost a surrogate father to me. I was 13 years old. As we both grew older, we took many trips together and he became more like my older brother. Joe was so unique. He was a gifted observer of human behavior and interactions. He could fix anything. He made beautiful objects out of wood, some of which I still have in my home. He was also the best storyteller I have ever met.

Many years after my sister died of cancer, Joe met and married June, a talented artist in her own right, and they had a wonderful, loving life together.

Joe is survived by his wife June; his sister Mary Ann; his four children, Theresa, Joe Kelly, Danny, and Mary; four grandchildren, Sean, Ryan, Erin, and Ciera; and four step grandchildren, Terry, Kristen, Shauna, and Dawn.

``Big Joe'' led a full, challenging, and interesting life. He was truly one of our ``Greatest Generation,'' a true patriot who loved his country, his family, and his many friends.

He helped to make America a better nation for all.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Wednesday, July 10, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark-up S. 815, Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 and any nominations cleared for action.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the Committee at (202) 224-5375.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rachel Murphy, Alexandra Pena, and Lissandra Villa of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

I object.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Building a Foundation of Fairness: 75 Years of the Federal Minimum Wage.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Sarah Cupp of the committee staff on (202) 224-5441.

Mr. President, with the passing of Senator Frank Lautenberg this month, the Senate lost one of its most respected and accomplished members--a great progressive driven by a passion for justice and a deep love for this country.

Indeed, Frank Lautenberg's remarkable life is the American dream personified. He was the son of poor, hard-working immigrant parents who entered America through Ellis Island. He served in the U.S. Army in World War II, attended Columbia University thanks to the GI bill, founded an enormously successful company, and was elected five times to the U.S. Senate.

Senator Lautenberg will be remembered here in the Senate for his tenacity and fearlessness in pursuit of his ambitious legislative goals. Frank was a fighter. Time and again, he took on powerful interests to improve the health and safety of the American people, and countless individuals have led longer, healthier lives as a result of his tireless advocacy.

One of Senator Lautenberg's great early accomplishments came in 1984, just 2 years into his first term. As a freshman Senator in the minority party, he successfully passed legislation establishing a national drinking age of 21. That law alone is estimated to have saved more than 25,000 lives. Sixteen years later, he championed legislation effectively creating a nationwide ban on driving by anyone with a blood-alcohol content of .08 or higher, a change that also dramatically reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

I was proud to work closely with Senator Lautenberg in the fight to combat the public health threat posed by tobacco usage. He will forever be remembered as the author of the landmark 1989 law that banned smoking on all domestic airlines flights--and that law was just the beginning of his efforts to curb smoking in a broad range of public places. In the current Congress, I was proud to join him in an effort to stop tobacco smuggling and to increase and equalize tobacco taxes.

Throughout his career, Senator Lautenberg championed women's health issues. He worked to ensure that students have access to comprehensive sex education; that woman who go to their neighborhood pharmacy to fill a prescription for birth control cannot be turned away because of the objections of the pharmacist; and that Peace Corps volunteers have access to insurance coverage for abortion services in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment. He also fought for women's reproductive rights internationally and was a long-time advocate for repealing the ``global gag rule'' on federally funded family planning organizations.

Even in his final months as he battled cancer, Frank was unstoppable. He continued the fight to secure relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy. In April, using a wheelchair, he insisted on coming to the Senate floor to cast votes in favor of tougher gun safety legislation. And, to the end, he continued to lead the fight for long overdue legislation to keep Americans safe from thousands of toxic chemicals we encounter in our daily lives, including in furniture, fabrics and cleaning products. I can think of no better way for Senators to honor our late colleague than by passing chemical safety legislation for the first time in nearly four decades.

Frank Lautenberg began his career in public service as a citizen soldier in Europe in World War II. It must be noted that Frank was the last veteran of World War II to serve in the Senate. In January, we lost another distinguished veteran of World War II, Senator Dan Inouye. The fact is, for nearly six decades, this institution has been enriched and ennobled by members of the ``greatest generation''--people like Philip Hart, Bob Dole, George McGovern, Fritz Hollings, Dan Inouye, and Frank Lautenberg--who began their public service in uniform in wartime, and who brought a special dimension to

the Senate. They had a unique perspective on matters of war and peace. They were motivated by a patriotism not of words, but of deeds and sacrifice. And they were determined advocates for veterans, including veterans of our most recent wars.

Here in the Senate and across the Nation, there have been many tributes to our friend Frank Lautenberg. As I said, he was a passionate progressive. He was a tenacious fighter. He was a Senator of many landmark legislative accomplishments. But knowing Frank as a true gentleman and great family man, I can think of no greater tribute than to note that Senator Frank Lautenberg was a man of enormous honor, decency, and graciousness. He was a wonderful friend. May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Wednesday, June 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reducing Senior Poverty and Hunger: The Role of the Older Americans Act.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Sophie Kasimow of the committee staff on (202) 224-2831.

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, June 20, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Developing a Skilled Workforce for a Competitive Economy: Reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act.''

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Leanne Hotek of the committee staff on (202) 224-5501.

Committee on energy and natural resources

Madam President, sometimes Congress passes legislation that directly creates jobs. More often, we approach job creation indirectly, with legislation that lays the groundwork for a more productive and dynamic private sector. An excellent example of this is this new farm bill.

The chairwoman, Senator Stabenow, and the ranking member, Senator Cochran, deserve congratulations and our sincere gratitude for all of their efforts and their success in bringing this bill through the Agriculture Committee and to the Senate floor. And because this bill reflects so much of the work done in the last Congress, I also want to recognize the many contributions of Senator Roberts.

As a senior member and former chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, this is the eighth farm bill I have worked on since coming to Congress in 1975. I chaired the committee during passage of the 2002 and 2008 bills. From that experience, I can tell my colleagues the new farm bill--the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013--is good for Iowa and our entire Nation.

It is a difficult enough process to craft a farm bill without the extra hardship of having to take spending reductions out of the budget baseline. These budget cuts are very difficult because there are compelling needs respecting food, agriculture, and rural America. This measure embodies genuine sacrifices and serious deficit reduction. It exceeds the farm bill deficit reduction in the budget resolution we passed here in the Senate.

This bill reflects a bipartisan balance among numerous competing demands. It was broadly supported in the committee and I hope it will be broadly supported by the full Senate. Again, I commend the leadership of our committee for striking that balance and building support for this legislation.

Overall net farm income has been strong in our Nation in recent years, and that has given a boost to rural economies. But this strong income has not been enjoyed by all producers of all commodities, or in all regions of the country. For example, many farmers and ranchers are still struggling to survive the devastating impact of drought and other natural disasters.

This bill wisely continues programs that offer some income protection and stability in the face of the inevitable natural disasters and swings in farm production levels and commodity prices. At the same time, this bill continues and builds upon important reforms in recent farm bills, for example, by strengthening and tightening payment limitations.

A landmark reform in this bill is eliminating what are called the direct commodity payments. From their inception, I did not believe the direct payments were sound or responsible policy. They were inadequate when farm prices and incomes fell. Yet when prices and incomes rose, the payments continued anyway, which was unjustified, and even embarrassing.

And so I support replacing the direct payments with the revenue protection program in this bill focused on protecting farmers against losses of revenue, taking into account both prices and yields. The new revenue program is an evolution of the Average Crop Revenue Election-- ACRE--program that I was pleased we included in the 2008 farm bill. This bill also continues a strong crop insurance program, and in fact it makes it even more beneficial to farmers. That is certainly of substantial economic value to Iowa farmers.

In the conservation title, I commend Senator Stabenow, Senator Cochran, and Senator Roberts for important improvements in the programs, and for continuing the Conservation Stewardship Program and other critical initiatives with substantial funding levels. I do very much regret that conservation funding is cut from the budget baseline levels, but I commend and thank the leaders of our committee for limiting those conservation budget cuts.

I especially want to express my strong congratulations for the momentous agreement that was reached between the farm community and the conservation community to reinstate minimum conservation requirements in order for a farmer to receive Federal crop insurance subsidies. This is a very important policy reform. I very strongly urge my colleagues to support this agreement on making basic conservation an integral part of crop insurance.

I am pleased this bill continues to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to school children across the country. That is an initiative I started and expanded as chairman. I regret, however, that this legislation reduces funding for nutrition assistance to low-income Americans. I commend the chairwoman and ranking member for limiting these reductions. I intend to try to mitigate cuts to antihunger programs as the legislative process moves forward.

In the several farm and rural energy programs in the bill, I am very pleased with the substantial level of mandatory funding dedicated to continue these effective and beneficial initiatives.

So, again, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their good work and pledge my support to them in moving this bill through the Senate and to conference with the House--once the House passes its bill, we hope--and then to the President.

This new farm bill is vitally important to our Nation and especially to productivity, vitality and jobs in our Nation's food and agriculture sector. It is far too important to be delayed any longer.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the remarkable service of Robert Martin, who has spent his life overcoming racial barriers and giving back to his country through extraordinary military and public service.

Born and raised in Dubuque, IA, Mr. Martin, in his youth and throughout his life, demonstrated an exceptional commitment to academics, athletics, and community service. He participated in Boy Scouts despite threats and backlash from fellow scouts' parents. He was also ultimately inducted into the Dubuque Senior High School Athletic Hall of Fame. He graduated from Iowa State University earning a degree in electrical engineering and obtained a pilot's license.

Mr. Martin, while still in college, applied to join the U.S. Army Air Corps and was accepted after he was drafted into service. He began his military career in Fort Dodge, but was transferred to Tuskegee, AL, to train in the Army's Black pilot program, where he received the rank of commissioned second lieutenant and specialized in operating the AT-6 Texan and the P-40 War Hawk. He then, in 1944, became an active fighter pilot in Italy, conducting over 60 long-range combat missions as part of the 100th Fighter Squadron. His squadron defended B-17 Flying Fortresses from German assaults. On March 3, 1945, he was shot down by ground fire in Yugoslavia. He parachuted from his burning plane and successfully avoided German capture with the help of Yugoslavian partisans. Upon his recovery, he returned to the U.S. and was honorably discharged.

After being discharged, Mr. Martin continued to serve in the Army Air Corps Reserves, rising to the rank of captain. Following his military career, he maintained a commitment to public service, serving as an engineer for Cook County, IL. He was also a leader in Tuskegee Airmen, Inc., an organization whose members travel the country as educators and historians.

Mr. Martin was awarded a number of accolades for his service, including the Distinguished Flying Cross, a Purple Heart, an Air Medal with six Oak Leaf Clusters, and, in 2007, the Congressional Gold Medal. Moreover, he was inducted into the Iowa Aviation Hall of Fame and presented the George Washington Carver Medal from Simpson College, which recognizes individuals who have served as an inspiration to others; demonstrated leadership and conviction; advanced the fields of science, education, the arts, or religion; and dedicated themselves to addressing humanitarian issues. Mr. Martin's record exemplifies the extraordinary military service African Americans performed and the dedication that they displayed for their country in spite of the prejudice they experienced.

Robert Martin is a remarkable citizen, truly deserving of his many decorations and my gratitude. I wish him and his family all the best and thank him and all the Tuskegee Airmen for their steadfast service.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in executive session on Tuesday, June 11, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to mark-up S.___ Strengthening America's Schools Act and any nominations cleared for action.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the Committee at (202) 224-5375.