there will also be a couple of votes on legislation seeking to set the doubling of student loan interest rates. we expect the senate to recess early to allow the body of senator frank lautenberg to lie in repose in the senate claimer. live now to the senate onsena c-span2. will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god our fortress, our shelter in the time of storm. we look to you for peace in spite of turbulence and trust you to bring us to a desired destination. with your mighty acts, you bless and unshackle us, and we rejoice in the freedom you provide.

strengthen our senators, today, so that they may speak and act inspired by your spirit. lord, enable them to hear your voice and allow your leading. make them good stewards of the influence as they strive to live exemplary lives. guide them, o god, until they delight to do your will. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 6, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william cowan, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that s. 744 as reported by the judiciary committee be star printed with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar number 80, s. 744. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 80, s. 744, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and so forth and for other

purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i have a cloture motion i ask to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number number 80, s. 744, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes signed by 18 senators as follows: reid of nevada, leahy, menendez, coons, hirono, feinstein, nelson, cardin, whitehouse, franken, blumenthal, wyden, reed of rhode island, murray, bennet, harkin, schumer, durbin. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i now withdraw the

motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the motion is withdrawn. mr. reid: mr. president, following leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of the farm bill. the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to the bill is 9:45 today. at 10:00 there will be three roll call votes, first a motion to invoke cloture on the farm bill and then a cloture vote to proceed to the republican student loan bill and then to proceed to the democratic student loan bill. senate lawyeringberg will -- senator lautenberg will lie in repose in the chamber at 2:15 p.m.. mr. president, i want to just briefly say that i really appreciate, as we all do, the work of the sergeant at arms.

terry gainer and his whole staff are making this so very, very pleasant yesterday, at least as pleasant as a funeral can be. and it was really a celebration. because of the jewish tradition this had to be jammed in very quickly. there was not a lot of time. so they were under tremendous pressure. i appreciate the work that allowed us to get this done by secretary hagel, ash carter, at the pentagon. i also appreciate assistant secretary of the senate sheila dwyer and her staff, the secretary's office for doing all the things they did to make this whole situation as pleasant as it has been. i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate resume consideration of the farm bill the time until 10:00 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: following the vote

on the motion to invoke cloture on s. 953 the time until 11:45 equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. further, that i be recognized at 11:45 today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: this afternoon the united states senate will pay final respects to a friend and colleague, a respected colleague -- and that is an understatement -- frank lautenberg. he will lie in repose in the senate chamber. he was known as one of the most effective senators to serve in this body and as we learned yesterday one of the most humorous. his leadership as well as his laughter and kindness will be missed. mr. president, i've talked a little bit about the farm bill, but in a few minutes we'll consider whether to end debate on the agriculture jobs bill. i commend chairman stabenow, ranking member cochran for their

excellent work in managing this bill. we were able to get some votes, but we ran into a problem, unable to reach an agreement to consider a finite number of amendments as they have tried to do for several days. i'm optimistic and hopeful, though, we'll advance this measure and that soon the farm bill will pass on a strong bipartisan vote as it did last year. unfortunately last year the house of representatives failed to even consider the senate senate-passed bipartisan farm bill. i hope this year republican leadership will allow the senate's bipartisan legislation which will create jobs, cut taxpayer subsidies and reduce the debt by some $23 billion, to be voted on in the house. america's farms and ranches are the most productive in the world but to keep america's farms and america's economy strong congress must pass a strong farm bill and do it quickly. on one final subject, mr. president, to ensure this nation's continued economic recovery and long-term success, it is crucial that america

invest in our educated workforce. we need to continue having an educated workforce. in this country a college education is the surest path to a better life but higher education has never been more expensive or further out of reach for middle-class families. so it's crucial that congress act before july 1 to keep student loan rates low for seven million college students who can't afford to pile on even more debt. democrats have a commonsense plan to prevent loan rates from doubling for two years without adding a single penny to the deficit. we'll consider that legislation, as i've indicated, later this morning. republicans' alternative proposal by contrast will be worse than doing nothing at all. it would be worse than letting the rates double, which would happen if we do nothing. their proposal, the republican proposal, would saddle students with even more debt. about $6,500 more debt than they have today, a serious blow considering americans already have more than $1 trillion in

debt regarding student loans. so keeping college affordable is the best investment we can make in our country. congress should be removing the obstacles that keep young people from getting an education, not putting more barriers in their way. i hope my republican colleagues will work to help us invest in america's future instead of once again sticking it to the students. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: earlier this week i came to the floor and asked senate democrats to work with us on a permanent student loan reform. this is an issue ripe for bipartisan cooperation. both the president and republicans want to prevent rates from going up in july, and the ideas republicans have put forward on the issue are

actually very similar to what the president has already proposed. so this actually should be a slam dunk. instead senate democrats have put forward a bill that fails the very benchmarks that the president himself set. a bill that's nothing more than a short-term political patch funded by permanent tax hikes, a bill that would cost taxpayers more than $8 billion, yet only save students about $6 a month. worse still, it's a bill senate democrats know will fail. in fact, they actually seem to be indicating they want it to fail. why would that be? undoubtedly so they can keep this issue alive for the permanent campaign that never seems to end. top senate democrats have stated themselves that they're not looking for compromise and that they're determined to show -- quote -- "the difference between the two parties on a key issue."

even where there really isn't one. two of the most senior democrats said those things. those are direct quotes. so basically they're determined to force a partisan fight here regardless of the cost to students. and the way they've set up this morning's votes, well, it's pretty clear those votes are intentionally designed to fail. so when senate democrats get their wish and the bill fails this evening, i hope the president will step in to work with us on a serious permanent solution because, as i said, our ideas for reform are not all that different from his on this issue. and students should not be made to suffer just because some in this town seem to see them as pawns in a political chess match. look, this isn't a fight young americans need, especially they don't need this fight right now. young men and women are already having a rough enough go in the

obama economy. those who make it through college face a highly uncertain future once they get out in the real world, as their parents like to call it, they're having a real tough time finding a job. and once obamacare comes on line, experts predict their health care premiums are set to skyrocket. young men in their mid 20's to mid 30's could see rate increases of 50% or more depending upon which study you look at. but here's the thing. even if premiums end up going up by just a small fraction of that amount, it's still going to create an enormous headache for the next generation. while the administration's allies promise subsidies, studies indicate that those payments from taxpayers might not make up for the higher cost. look, many young folks seem to be largely living paycheck to

paycheck these days often because they literally have no other choice. these men and women are just getting by as it is. do we really -- do we really expect these americans to be able to afford to pay even more? well, apparently washington democrats do, because if young folks don't cough up money for health insurance, they're going to get hit with a penalty tax. so one way or the other, many are going to start paying more. that's just one more reason why senate democrats need to get serious about the student loan issue. this summer alone more than nine million college students will take out nearly $7,000 worth of loans. and about $25,000 in total by the time they earn their degrees. that's a smart investment, but it's also a lot of money. we owe them certainty and stability and permanent reform along the lines republicans and

president obama have called for, and those two proposals i said are not that far apart and they would actually accomplish that result. so it's time for democrats in washington to put the campaigning aside and work with us to enact just that kind of reform. now, on another matter, mr. president, i have said repeatedly and want to say again today, the senate needs to know whether the majority leader intends to uphold the commitment that he has now twice made, and his commitment was that he wouldn't break the rules of the senate to change the rules. specifically, both at the beginning of the last congress and at the beginning of this congress he committed to the senate and to the american people that he would not use what is referred to as the

nuclear option. these were very clear commitments. they were not contingent commitments or commitments made with caveats. they they were in the contingent commitments or commitments made with caveat. so here we have the exact words of the majority leader. here at the beginning of the previous congress, on january 27, 2011, the majority leader said, "i agree that the proper way to change senate rules is through the procedures established in those rules, and i will oppose any effort in this congress" -- and listen to this, mr. president and my colleagues -- "or the next" -- that's the congress we're in now -- "to change the senate's rules other than through the regular order."

no contingencies, no caveats, no saying "unless i decide i don't like your behavior." in this congress, there was an exchanges between myself and the majority leader. here is what i said. this is on january 24 of 2013, this year. "finally, i would confirm with the majority leader that the senate would not consider other resolutions relating to any standing order or rules this congress unless" -- unless -- "they went through the regular order process?" now, at the beginning of this session of congress, mr. president, we passed a couple of rules changes, a couple of standing orders. we made some changes, and we

made those changes in return for the majority leader's commitment, which followed: "that is correct. any other resolutions related to senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the rules committee." in other words, an unequivocal, not contingent commitment, so that everyone knew the rules of the senate for the entire congress. no sort of hanging a sort of damocles over your head and saying, if you don't behave like i want you to, i'll break my word. now the suggestion apparently is, you have to behave in a certain way to satisfy me, or my word doesn't mean anything.

this is a serious matter, mr. president. we're only one half of one year through a two-year congress, and the senate and the american people deserve to know whether the word of the majority leader will be kept. now, mr. president, on another matter, today is the 69th anniversary of the d-day invasion. june 6, 1944, 160,000 allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of heavily fortified french coastline? -- coastline in a surprise attack against the forces of nazi germany. the cost was exceedingly high. more than 9,000 allied soldiers

were killed or wounded that day. but the senator man did i invasion was the beginning -- but the senator man did i invasion was the beginning of a successful conclusion to the end of the war. i'm also honored to honor veterans from my state who have made the trip to our nation's capital today, appropriately enough on d-day, to visit the national world war ii memorial on the mall. this group will include 26 veterans who are able to make the trip to see their memorial, thanks to the honor flight program. the bluegrass chapter of honor flight has brought thousands to d.c. for this purpose. this program provides transportation, lodging, and

food for the veterans. without honor flight, many of these veterans would never be able to visit the capital or see the world war ii memorial. like many of my colleagues, i have been privileged to visit with groups of honor flight veterans on several occasions before, and i'm pleased to report that i'll be meeting with today's group at the memorial as well. my father served in world war ii. he got there after d-day and after the battle of the bulge and was there from march of 1945 to the end of the war when we were pushing the germans back into their own country. i wish he had lived long enough to have had an opportunity to visit the world war ii memorial. i know it would have meant a lot to him, it is a i as it does tos world war ii veterans. sadly, we're losing more of

these living legends. we've just had to say goodbye to our friend, senator frank lautenberg, the last world war ii veterans to serve in this body. the passage of time makes it all the more important that we thank those heroes for their service before it is too late. today is a perfect occasion to do just that. and i luke forward to meating this group of courageous -- to meeting this group of courageous veterans from hartford, louisville, lexington, springfield, mount washington, and taylorsville. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership 250eu78 is is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 954, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 73, s. 954, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through

2018. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the i two leaders or their designees. ms. warren: mr. president, there are only three weeks left until interest rates on new subsidized student loans will double. if we fail to act, the cost of college will increase for millions of students. there are strong proposals on the table that we keep interest rates low while congress has time to work out a permanent solution, and yet congress fails to act. why? two issues: money and values. first money. some have argued that we can't atord to keep interest rates low. but let's be clear. right now the federal government is making a profit from our students. just last month the congressional budget office calculated that the government

will make $51 billion this year off student loans. think about that. $51 billion. and that's $16 billion higher than the earlier estimate. we have the money to cut interest rates, if we're willing to reduce the profits we make from our students. unfortunately, republicans see it differently. two weeks ago house republicans passed a plan that would produce higher profits off the backs of our college students, and here in the senate senator coburn has introduced a similar bill that makes student loans more profitable -- all at the expense of our college students. this is wrong. we should reject republican plans to make more profits off our students. now, senator coburn talks about how his plan is similar to the low interest rate banks offer

through the federal reserve, but he's got that wrong. the big banks borrow at less than 1%. but senator coburn would charge students an additional 3% on top of the 10-year treasury rates. his plan would produce billions more in profits for the government, money that comes straight out of the pockets of our struggling students. we have the money to help our students. we just don't need to squeeze them harder. the second issue is values. our college students already see that the system is rigged against them. they watch wall street bankers get bailed out while their parents lost jobs and struggled to language on to their -- and strunandstruggled to hang on tor homes. the investments in their future in jobs at home disappear. and now senator coburn plans to squeeze more profits out of our

students. he's fine with the government handing out loans to big banks at incrediblcredibly low rates e wants our students to pay more. that's not who we are. this does not reflect our values. we see students drowning in debt, and we should be there to help. senator harkin and senator reid have shown great leadership on this issue. they offer a simple solution to prevent interest rates from doubling. their plan would maintain the current 3.4% interest rate for two more years. i've also introduced a short-term plan that would cut interest rates even more by offering the exact same rate that the big banks get through the federal reserve discount window. i introduce this one-year deal because we need immediate relief while we develop a long-term plan. so i rise today in support of senator reid and senator

harkin's proposal to freeze interest rates on subsidized loans for two more years. their proposal prevents the rates from doubling on july 1, and it also gives us time to develop a plan that alliance with our values -- that aligns with our values an supports our students. now, this really is about our values. have we become a people who will support our big banks with merely free loans while we crush our kids who are trying to get an education? the student loan program makes obscene profits on the backs of our students. this is morally wrong, and we must put a stop to it. you know, our students don't have high-paid lobbyists to look out for their interests, but they do have their voices. petitions urging congress to pass a short-term plan for interest rates to prevent them from doubling have already

collected more than a million signatures. our students and their families are asking for what is right. they are asking for something we can easily afford. let's show them that government can work for them. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, let me first commend the senator from massachusetts, senator warren, for her extraordinarily thoughtful discussion of this increasingly important topic of student debt. her efforts to assist us in extending the current interest rate of 3.4% while we work on a much longer and much more thoughtful approach to reform, and she will be at the heart of those efforts. july 1 is a little more than three weeks away and unless congress acts, the interest rate on need-based student loans will double from 3.4% to 6.8%, making

college more expensive for more than million across the nation, including more than 32,000 students in my home state of rhode island. this will hit low- and moderate-income families the hardest. indeed, 60% of dependent subsidized loan borrowers come from families with incomes of less than $60,000 while 80% of independent -- independent -- subsidized loan borrowers come from familiars with incomes below $40,000. there is no reason to allow this rate to double. and there's no reason to rush to a long-term solution that would actually make the problem worse. there are several long-term proposals on the table with substantial differences. the house passed a bill that, dorgan analysis by -- that according to an analysis by the congressional research service, would leave students worse off than just letting the rate double. the president says he would double this legislation. if the house bill went into

effect, it would be worse off than doing nothing, which you think is a strong argument to do something other than the house bill. my republican colleagues in this body have proposed a long-term solution that would expose students to unchecked interest rates in the future -- there would be no cap shall did and -e would be no cap -- and have them pay for interest payments for deficit reduction. i don't think the federal government should be generate being revenue from student loans programs. we should not be profiting on the backs of these students, particularly student debt explodes. i propose setting interest rates on the actual cost of providing a loan with a cop to protect students during -- with a cap to protect students during periods of high interest rates. any protection should leave students better off in the long running. the republican proposals do not pass this test.

according to a recent analysis, the senate republican proposal would cost students entering college in fall and graduating in 2017, esd $2,200 in interest payments. for fresh america's the increased interest payment would balloon to $6,700. the savings generated from the republican proposal means that students pay more. as i have come to the floor to discuss many times, with student loan debt eclipsing credit card debt and auto loan debt, we should take the time to thoughtfully and comprehensively student debt and college costs. how we set student loan interest rates is only one part of the solution. we need to address rising college costs as well. if we don't, even with grants and loans, families will be priced out of a college education and out of the middle class. we need to ask more from states

and from colleges and universities. and i will be introducing legislation to revitalize the federal-state partnership for higher education and to make sure that colleges and universities have more skin in the game when it comes to student loans. these are big, complex issues, and we should work to develop bipartisan solutions. but that work, that careful work, that thoughtful work, that thorough work will take time, more than the 25 days we have between now and july 1. right now we can and we must take action to reassure students and families that rely on needs-based loans to pay for college that the rate will not double on july 1. i've worked with chairman harkin, senator warren, leader reid and many of my colleagues to develop a two-year extension of the current student loan interest rate. instead of charging more for loans, the student affordability

act will keep rates steady. the bill will limit the use of tax-deferred retirement account as a estate planning tool. restrict earnings streupgz by -- strippingings and close a loophole by treating tar sands the same as other petroleum products. these are sensible measures in and of themselves but when they allow us to stabilize the student interest rate, they take on morell vans and i think more importance. we should not be collecting additional revenue from students when we cannot or will not eliminate waste sp-pbgd in the tax code and -- spending in the tax code and we should not allow interest rates to double on july 1. i hope all of my colleagues will support this commonsense two-year extension. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to s. 953, the student loan affordability act.

i would yield the floor, mr. president. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i'm here to say to my colleagues that though we're going to go through a very expedited process, voting on two options on student loans, i want to urge my colleagues to take this seriously. this has a huge financial impact on families across this country. and i say families because we're focused on the students. in many cases it's the parents taking out loans. and the truth is that under one option today, parents are left out. you see, the debate on this floor today is over two bills. one offered by my friends in the majority which would extend the

3.4% interest rate on subsidized stafford loans. that's 39% of all the student loans taken out. it doesn't speak to the 61% that are still under the 6.8% rate. it's parents, it's students that take out unsubsidized stafford loans, they're still at 6.8%. more importantly, you need to look at the financial sustainability of the program. when this was originally enacted in 2006, the campaign rhetoric was we're going to drastically cut student loans for everybody until they realized how much it was going to cost. and then they limited it to subsidized stafford loans. and when the authorization for that runs out, we have this debate about whether we're going to extend the 3.4% student loan

rate. we just forget to tell everybody it's for a subsection of everybody that's taking out student loans. so let me suggest to you that the other option today will be to put student loans on the financial firm footing, something that we can certify for the future as financially sustainable not just for the students and for the parents, but for the american taxpayer. they should have a voice in this. so what ranking member alexander and senator coburn and myself introduced is a comprehensive piece of legislation that ties this rate of student loan borrowing to the rate of the ten-year bond in may of that year. so this past month we would take the rate of the ten-year bond, which was about 1.79%. you would add 3% to it. and for the next year the rate for everybody taking out student loans would be 4.79%.

some members of the senate can't add. and for the next 12 months anybody that took out a student loan would be at 4.79%. not some at 3.4% and the rest at 6.8%. and that 4.79% would be a fixed rate for the life of the loan. it wouldn't go away in 12 months and have to be renegotiated based upon what the will of congress was in the legislative mandate of what the interest rate was going to be. and every year that somebody went, whether it was a parent, whether a nonsubsidized stafford or subsidized stafford, whatever that establishment of the ten-year bond was, you would add 3% to it. it would be very predictable. you wouldn't be at the whim of is congress going to extend this? let me predict to you, i know what we're going to do. we're going to have two options up today. neither one of them is going to

get 60 votes. it means it's not going to pass. and the day before, or two days before the expiration of the 3.4% rate, people are going to rush to the floor and say we can't let this happen. mr. president, we've got an opportunity to fix it, to fix it on a permanent basis, to say to parents, to say to those that are in the nonsubsidized stafford and, yes, to those in the subsidized stafford, we're putting this on financially sound ground, and we're going to do it in a transparent way that lets you know every may exactly what you can borrow money for your college education can be. if you borrow every year for four years you're going to have different rates. you're right. and the reality is that in this bill you've got an option at any point that you choose to do it to consolidate those loans at a guaranteed 8.5%. so if it's more attractive to

have four different packages of loans with lower interest rates or the blend of them might be higher, you can consolidate them and take a guaranteed rate. i heard my good friend quote the congressional research service. they came out with an analysis of the two pieces of legislation last night, and they came to this conclusion, that for the subsidized stafford loans, the alexander-burr-coburn proposal was not very different than what my friends on the other side presented. but for everybody else, for the 61%, it saved them $80 a month. let me say that again. for everybody else that's not in the subsidized stafford loan, the congressional research office said our bill saves parents and students that are in the nonsubsidized student loan program $80 a month.

it's almost $1,000 a year. this is real money. this is what congress should pay attention to. let me suggest to you this. congress shouldn't be sitting in washington deciding with a dart board here's what the student loan rate is going to be this year. should the price of money in the marketplace not have some impact on it? and what we're simply saying is tie it to a very predictable transparent number. the ten-year cost of borrowing money plus 3%. you see, mr. president, unlike throughout the 1990's and half of 2000's, we don't have private-sector competition against the government model. we decided that having financial institutions come in and offer more attractive interest rates

or waiving origination fees or administration fees of a student loan, no, we didn't want that to happen even though in many cases it saves students money. we said we want to centralize this in the federal government. we want to take over the whole thing. and then the congress deciding we want to set the rates. let me suggest to my colleagues, this is nothing more than a political tool right now. the last person we're trying to look at are the students or their families that actually need loans to send their kids to college. today's vote is a defining moment. if we take advantage of passing one that structures this to where the rates that we set are out of congressional control and set by the marketplace in a predictable transparent way, then this is sustainable. if it's not, this will be the subject of every two years in campaign rhetoric, where some

win and some lose. i didn't come here to pick winners and losers. i came here to give equal opportunity and unlimited opportunity to the next generation and the generation after that. to suggest that only people who qualify for subsidized stafford loans are the ones that should give favorable treatment to is ludicrous. and what we'd like to do is to provide a predictable mechanism to set rates, but one that doesn't pick winners and losers, one that treats everybody who is in the student loan need category the same. so i see that the ranking member is here, and i'm going to yield to him. but i do want to say to my colleagues this is not just another 15-minute vote. you shouldn't feel good if you vote for one and vote against another and nothing passes,

because we're going to be back here before july 1 and the likelihood is it's going to be presented to us in a way we're not going to have the option of doing the right thing. they're going to say do you want to suffer the political consequences of letting rates go from 3.4% to 6.8% on 39% of the american people? i would tell you a parent borrowing money for their children today is just as vulnerable as the student that is qualified and borrows under a subsidized stafford loan. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i'd like to congratulate the senator from north carolina for his proposal. these two votes we have today, this is like the opening act at the circus. hopefully the main event will attract some senators who are willing to conduct this in a grown-up way. we don't really have a agreement here. we have -- we don't really have a disagreement here.

we have a serious issue. we have students graduating all over the country from high school at about this time. and about 70% of them want to go to college, will go to college. and the taxpayers want to encourage that. we spend about $35 billion in pell grants to help pay for that and then three out of four of those students who go to college will go to public colleges and universities like the university of michigan or mississippi or north carolina, tennessee. and the taxpayer helps foot the bill for that. and then the taxpayer is going to loan $133 billion this year in student loans to students of all kinds. and what the senator from north carolina and the senator from oklahoma have suggested, and i join them, is that we take advantage of today's low rates and that we lower rates on all the new loans to something below

5%, fix that rate for those students who get their loans this year, allow them to participate in the income repayment program so that when they take a job they won't have to spend too much of their money repaying back the loan. in some cases it can ultimately be forgiven and there is a cap on a consolidated loan if they choose to do that, which many do. if we had a real disagreement about that, that would be one thing. but, mr. president, we don't have a real disagreement. the house of representatives, which is republican, as we know -- this is a democratic body -- the house of representatives has passed a bill based on the same idea. the president of the united states, president obama, has presented a budget to the senate a few weeks ago based on the same idea. the idea is very simple. let's take money -- if we're going to loan $133 billion this year, let's take the money at exactly what it costs the government to get the money,

which today i believe the senator said is about 1.75%, something like that. let's add 3% to that all of which goes back to the department of education for collections, defaults, administrative, so there's no profit on the students. and let's loan it to the students. and let's fix that rate. if it's 4.5% today, it's 4.75% the next year for that loan. if the rates go up, the rates next year will reflect that increase. so it's fair to the students, and it's fair to the taxpayers. it's a permanent solution. it's the same idea that the house has already passed. it's the same idea that the president has recommended. yet our friends on the other side are so intent on playing political games that they want to have two votes today. and if i may say so, they should hire somebody to come up with a better idea than they came up with here. this is one of their weakest

attempts at a political game i've seen in ten years. we've got a permanent solution supported by the president, supported by the house republicans -- all the same idea -- and they've come up with a short-term fix for 40% of the loans. they leave 60% hanging high and dry. they raise taxes to do it, and it's unconstitutional for them to do it because it originates a revenue bill in the senate instead of the house much that's their weak idea. now, mr. president, why aren't they following the example the senator from michigan, the senator from mississippi, work in a bipartisan way to get a result? why aren't they following the same idea that the senator from california and the senator from louisiana on the water resources bill and work in a bipartisan way to get a result? why aren't they following the same idea that the four republicans and four democrats did on the immigration bill and work to get a result? instead, they have a political stunt at the white house, and they have another political stunt on the senate floor at a time when students -- students -- are graduating from high

school, looking forward to college and would like to have a permanent solution by july 1, which we can easily do. so, mr. president, i guess it is inevitable that the opening acts of the circus are going to sometimes be like this. but i regret it. i mean, i didn't really come to the senate to engage in this kind of thing. i would much rather sit down with my democratic colleagues, which i believe we could do and i'd much more rather down with the white house officials, which i believe we can do and with the house of representatives and spend the next three weeks saying, look, we all have the same idea. we have a serious issue here. it affects millions of students -- 70% of those trade waitin --e graduating from high school. it would show that we cannot only pass a water resources bill and farm bill but that we can

also solve the student loan problem on a bipartisan basis and then take up this more difficult immigration question, where we have some real differences of opinion, and we really need have a debate. so i'm here really to congratulate the senator from north carolina and the senator from oklahoma for their suggestion and to fully support it. i'll conclude by saying that they have two aspects to their bill that i believe is preferable to the version of this idea that passed the house and to the version of this idea that was recommended by the president. remember, it's the same idea, all three 34r5eus places. burr and coburn would say, let's have a single interest rate. you know, there are three types of student loans. it is very confusing even for those of us who have been around it a long time. so let's just say i there is a single student rate. what's the cost of money? right now if you get a loan of any kind, it is going to be

4.75%. it is whatever it costs the government to borrow the money plus 39% that tabs to the -- plus the 3% that goes to the department of education. the second thing they do that i would suggest is preferable to the house of representatives is if you get a loan at 4.75% in 2013, it's 4.75% in 2014 and 2015 and 2016. the house would have it going up each year. i don't like that idea and i don't think many students would. but i wish all of our serious issues opened with proposals from the president and the house of representatives and senate republicans that were as close together as this issue is. i mean, if we can't come to an agreement on this issue before july 1, based upon those three major centers of influence, all making the same proposal, then we ought to go back to civics class in the 7th grade. i don't think we need to do

that. i think we know how to do our jobs. this is the opening act of the circus. won't take too long. will be a little embarrassing that we have to go through t but after we go through it, maybe we can sit down and a senate full of grown-ups will say, let's take the senate's idea and the house idea and the president's idea and, let's put it together and congratulate all those students coming from college. let's encourage them, hope it is a ticket to the middle class and show that our country supports those students as they seek to advance their higher education. mr. president, i yield the floor many. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. alexander: if the senator from michigan would allow me to ask consent to place into the record following my remarks an op-ed from "the new york times" yesterday written by senator coburn and senator burr and me. thank you. i thank the nuclea the senator m

michigan. ms. stabenow: first i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the apule of the majority and minority leaders -- they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask that these requests be agreed to and they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: then i would ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes equally divided between the votes scheduled for 10:00 a.m., and that all after the first vote be ten-minute votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. stabenow: mr. president, as we tomorrow towe to our votew on cloture for the bill -- what we have doubled the farm bill, i first want to thank my rank member, the distinguished senator from mississippi, for a wonderful working relationship as we have moved to this point. he and his staff have been without objectioning diligently, as -- he and his staff have been working diligently, as has our staff. they have done a wonderful job

to get us to this point. i want to remind my colleagues that the vote we're about to take affects 16 million jobs. it is important to say again. i don't think there will be a single bill on this floor that affects more jobs more americans than the one that we are about to vote on. 16 million jobs in america. that's how many people depend on agriculture and the food industries for their jobs. they're watching us today, and they're homin hoping that once n this body, on a bipartisan basis, does the right thing and provides the leadership to move this bill forward. this particular bill includes 38 amendments that were passed on the floor during our debate last year, as we considered 73 amendments just a few months ago and another 14 amendments that

we added to the bill this year. and so i appreciate the input that colleagues have h' had to e this a strong farm bill with major reforms and real deficit reduction. this is an opportunity to cut spending by more than $24 billion. we in agriculture have done more thank any other part of the federal budget to not only meet what are the across-the-board sequester numbers but provide deficit reduction that is four times more than that while streamlining and providing effective policy for agriculture, conservation, nutrition, and the other parts of this bill. so we're not only standing with 16 million people whose jobs depend on agriculture, we're doing it in a responsible way that cuts the deficit. we're eliminating direct payments, moving toward a market-based risk management system for our farmers.

we're strengthening conservation to protect our soil and water resources for generations to come. with a streamlined conservation title and a new historic agreement between conservation and farm groups. we're focusing on beginning farmers to get more people into farming. we all have a stake in making sure that that happens. we're helping our veterans coming home from iraq and afghanistan to get started in agriculture as well. and i'm very proud of this portion of the bill that will reach out to those coming home, most from small communities around our country, to help them be able to get started in farming and keep us with the most affordable, most abundant and safest food supply in the world. agriculture is truly one of the brightest spots of our economy. it's one of the few areas where we actually have a trade surplus. and the policies in this

legislation are a big part of that. that's why more than 100 groups representing agriculture, conservation, nutrition, and every part of the economy represented by this bill have called on the senate this morning to vote "yes" on cloture. and i would ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter that we have received would be in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i would ask colleagues once again to come together and vote "yes" on the 16 million jobs that agriculture and the food industry support. i would ask colleagues to vote "yes" on major reforms. we've eliminated over 100 authorizations and programs that were duplicative, didn't work anymore, were not the right thing to do from a taxpayer standpoint. we have consolidated in a way that has not been done, i would

argue, for decade decades in tha of policy. and we have reduced the deficit by more than the last bill -- $24 billion. and i would ask colleagues to come together to keep this bill moving and to keep agriculture growing, ou our economy and creg jobs. thank you, mr. president. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president, i'm pleased to join the distinguished senator from michigan in urging the senate to approve this compromise bill that's been developed by the committee on agriculture and is now before the senate for a final vote. we need to pass this bill. it provides a framework to help farmers and ranchers in all regions of the country manage their risks more effectively. it consolidates 23 conservation

programs into 13. it contains improvements to nutrition programs, and it addresses fraud and abuse. it also reduces the cost of its programs by $24 billion. this bill reflects a real sense of fiscal responsibility but still provides a strong safety net for producers. i want to thank and congratulate the distinguished senator from michigan, the chair of our committee, for her hard work and her strong leadership. she's managed the legislation with skill and a commitment to meet the needs of agriculture producers as well as american consumers. i urge the senate to approve the motion to invoke clove. -- to invoke cloture.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ten tefnlt. mr. alexander: how much time before the vote begins in. the presiding officer: there are two minutes remaining. mr. alexander: mr. president, during that two minutes, i would like to say that on behalf of several senators, several republican senators including senator burr, isakson, kirk, roberts, and others, i'm

introducing today the every child ready for college or career act, a bill that would let states decide college schools and teachers are succeeding or failing. it we need the accumulation of federal mandates that have piled up on state and local school districts that have created in effect the national school board and it would help 50 million children in public schools learn what they need to know and be able to do by restoring responsibility to states and communities, giving teachers and parents more freedom, flexibility, and choices. i'll have more to say about this on monday in a floor speech, but i wantei wanted to call it to te attention of our colleagues. while it is being offered by republican senators, we don't see it as a republican bill. we see it as a piece of legislation that will attract the support of classroom teachers, of principals, of goafns, of legislators who have been working for 30 years to set

higher standards, create better tests and create accountability systems. we believe it is the job of the if eth to create a national environment for better schools, not to issue orders from washington understand that combination of -- and that the combination of no child left behind mandates and race to the top mandate have created such congestion in the u.s. department of education that it has become, in effect, a national school board. we want to head the other direction. we want to give back to states and local governments the responsibility for deciding whether schools and teachers are succeeding or failing. so i hope all of our colleagues will read the "every child ready for college career act." senator harkin and i will look forward to the markup on next tuesday in our health, education, labor and pensions committee. we'll have competing versions. his version is more than 1,100

pages. ours is 220 pages. that is a symbol of the difference in our approach. it will begin a debate which i hope goes through the committee, moves to the senate floor, combines with the house and produces a result and reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act this year. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on s. 954, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that the debate on s. 594, an original bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk shall call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. cochran: move to reconsider. ms. stabenow: move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cochran: the motion to table is laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will come to order. under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided. the senate will be in order. who yields time? who yields time? nor senator mr. president? -- a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. harkin: are we on the coburn-alexander bill? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i am asking a parliamentary inquiry. what bill are we on right now? the presiding officer: the senate is, under debate time, prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on s. 1003. mr. harkin: as i understand, there is one minute on both sides? the presiding officer: two minutes equally divided. mr. harkin: i will claim our first minute obviously. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, first of all, could we have order, please, in the senate? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president,

there's still a lot of conversation going on. i can hardly hear myself let alone others. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. harkin: i thank the presiding officer. mr. president, the bill before us now, like the house g.o.p. bill, fails the first policy test of do no harm. it is worse for students over the long term than if we even let the rate double. these are c.b.o. projections. if we just, again, adopt the next bill which leaves the interest rates at 3.4%, that's this line here, that's what students would pay in interest. if we let it double -- this is the white line -- if we adopt the republican bill, as you can see, in two years we are paying more -- students will be paying more over the next ten years in interest rates than if we even let it double. than if we even let it double. here is the bottom line on it. if we keep the rates at 3.4%, a

student that starts college next year goes for four years, borrows the maximum of $19,000. that student will pay $3,510 in interest over ten years. that's the life of the stafford loan. if we adopt the republicans' bill, that same student borrowing that same amount of money will pay $6,590 over t-pb years -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. harkin: this is the worst possible approach. you shouldn't reduce the deficit on the backs of students -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i urge a "yes" vote because this is a permanent solution for 100% of the student loans. it reduces rates for every single students' new loan. it has no profit on the student. it fixes the rate for the time of the loan. and it is the same idea as already passed by the house.

it is the same idea as supported by the president's budget. there are only minor differences between the president, the house, and this proposal. and if we can't agree on this, we can't agree on anything. this is a manufactured crisis. their proposal is a short-term political fix for 40% of the loans. this proposal is a permanent solution for 100% of the loans that would lower rates to below 5%. the same idea as in the president's budget, the same idea passed by the house. i urge a "yes" vote. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to reconsider to ininvoke cloture. the clerk: a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965, to reset interest rates for new student loans signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense

of the senate that the debate on the motion to proceed to s. 1003, a bill to amended higher education act of 1965, to reset interest rates for new student loans, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are, who- the yeas are 40rbg the nays are 57. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen adds sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two misseens of debate -- minutes of debate equally divided. the senate will be in order. who yields time? mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina.

the senate will be in order. mr. burr: mr. president, in 1992 the united states congress created the direct loan program. when this program was originat originated, the loans to students were variable rates. now, let me just say to my colleagues this morning -- a senator: could we have order? mr. burr: let me say to my colleagues this morning, congress now sets the rates. we changed that in 2006. the bill that you'll talk about now, let me just pose this to you: if you believe that it is appropriate for congress to pick winners and lose,then support this bill. if you believe that it's appropriate for congress to subsidize 40% of the student loan population and overcharge the other 60% of the student loan population, then vote for this bill. if you believe that that's not the congressional role and that

we need a long-term, permanent, transparent, predictable solution, then vote against this bill and let's sit down between mind july 1 -- between now and july 1 and right a bipartisan approach that solves this problem once and for all. i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reed: on july 1, interest rates will double for the most vulnerable students in our society, access to college, which is fundamental to our growth, our prosperity, individual advancement will be compromised for the most vulnerable 7 million families in this country. the republicans have a long-term proposal, but they don't have a long-term solution. because it's not just about interest rates. it's about college costs. it's about refinancing the huge amount of debt that families have today, not just families but students, that they'll never pay off.

we need the time, first to work on a long-term solution. but, second, we need to reassure vulnerable individuals and families that their rates will not double. student debt today is the second-largest debt in the country. we can't let it go any further. their proposals not only will not solve the problem, because they don't deal with all asecretaries, but it'll increase the debt. the presiding officer: senator's time has expired. mr. reed: i move passage in moving toward the vote. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 74, s. 953, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965, to extend the reduced interest rates for undergraduate direct staffed stafford loans,

to limit earnings stripping by expatriated entities to provide for modifications related to the oil spill liability trust fund and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the quorum call be has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the motion to proceed to s. 953, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965, to extend the reduced interest rate for undergraduate federal direct stafford loans, to modify required distribution rules for pension plans, to limit earnings stripping by expatriated entities, to provide for modifications related to the oil spill liability trust fund, and for other purposes shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 46. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30 today, all provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. president, i would amend that, that i be recognized at 12:30. we have some book -- housekeeping stuff we have to do regarding senator lautenberg. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

[inaudible] mr. reid: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. march manchin: ask to succs spent quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. manchin: madam president, i rise today to speak about an amazing west virginia family that is celebrating the 75th anniversary of their small business this week on june 8. jim twill founded jim's steak and spaghetti house in 1938 when he purchased the kennedy dairy store and renamed it jim's dairy

bar. they specialized in burgers and milkshakes until 1944 when roberto almoro approached jim about starting a spaghetti house using amoro's own personal recipes. jim agreed and expanded the restaurant to the room next door. hence, the spaghetti house opened in july of 19 had 44. since -- july of 1944. since that time, the restaurant has been remodeled but the objective remained the same. locating on 5th avenue, jim's steak and spaghetti house offers great food from homemade spaghetti, soups and sandwiches, tasty pies. over the years, i think i've tasted and enjoyed all of it. but this family-owned and operated business offers so much more to its clientele and visitors alike because this isn't just a restaurant. this is a landmark and an institution. as you step in the doors, you travel through time and greeted with a smile by everybody, with

its 1950-style decor, jim's walls are adorned with photos of the restaurant's creator posing with some of the most renowned public figures and celebrities who stopped by for a meal. people such as president john f. kennedy, president bill clinton, president george bush, dust inhofdustinhoffman and few muha. the restaurant is one of the most famous spots in our state. folks from the twill family are not only successful business leaders but also community advocates who are committed to making a positive difference in huntington and the tristate region. jim twill established his recipe of success 75 years ago based on five principles: good service, good food, courteous court say, cleanliness and ambiance. and even though jim twill is no longer with us, those same

principles still guy the family-owned and community institution that is now run by jim's daughter named jimmy. small businesses are the heart and soul of west virginia's economy and it has always been one of my top priorities to make sure small businesses have the support they need to be successful and create good-paying jobs right here in west virginia. i want to congratulate and recognize the twill family for their successes, especially 95-year-old sally rahall twill, jim's wife and one of the current owners, as well as jim's children, jimmy twill carter, the restaurant manager; larry twill, the company president; and ron twill, an officer of the corporation. their strong work ethic, their passion for business and their love of their community, all of which have been passed down generation to generation, represent the very best of our state, the great state of west virginia, has to offer. congratulations on 75 wonderful years. madam president, i notice the

lack of -- an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. toomey: thank you, madam president. i rise to people briefly about a heart-rending situation in pennsylvania that i want to call my colleagues' attention to. as i speak here this morning, there is a brave little ten-year-old girl who's fighting for her life in children's hospital of philadelphia. aiairaisarah suffered from cystc fibrosis and she's been in the hospital for three months now and recently she's been put on a machine that helps her to breathe with great difficulty. but she's at a point now where she needs a lung transplant. there's no question about that. the doctors, in fact, have said that she might only have a few weeks to live without a new lung. at this moment, her government

is failing her and here's the reason i say that. we have law and we have policy that requires that the health and human services branch of the federal government, through a third party, develop rules governing how organs are transplanted. this organization that has the direct authority is the organ procurement and transportation network. so they set up the rules by which we deal with this excruciating situation where there's always more demand for transplanted organs than there are supply of organs. at this -- prior to a decision yesterday afternoon, which i will comment on, sarah, despite a very high need for a transplant and despite the fact that her doctors believe she's a very good candidate for a transplant, her name was not on the list of people to receive a

transplant. simply by virtue of one fact and that is she has not yet reached the age of 12. see, the current policy has one very -- very sensible feature. the current policy is meant to establish as the highest priority for recipients people who have the most urgent need. that makes sense. you could have other criteria, like how long you've been waiting or whether -- how much you're willing to pay -- but i don't think those would be better. those would be worse. the right criteria is who's got the most urgent need. so that's right. the problem is, it applies only to people who are 12 and over. but there are children under the age of 12 who are very good candidates for adult lung transplants. the medical science is very clear on this. you take a portion of the lung if the child is too small for a full lung transplant, and this is -- this is well established, this works. this girl is a good candidate for this. but she's not on the list. now, yesterday something very important happened. sarah's parents filed a suit

against health and human services challenging the rule that excludes their daughter from this list. and the judge considering this, a judge from the eastern district of pennsylvania, a federal judge, judge bailson, granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the secretary and the organ procurement and transportation network, from applying the rule that excludes sarah. so this is terrific. this is a big breakthrough for ten days now. this is the thing. it's a temporary order. and for ten days now, sarah cannot be excluded from this list. so what that means is she can go on the list and she will go wherever on the list her -- the urgency of her circumstances puts her. and that's as it should be. the problem is, this is only for ten days. and then the judge is going to have a hearing. we don't know how that is all going to turn out. so what i'm asking is secretary

sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, to exercise the authority that is given to her in legislation to recognize that there's a flaw in this policy. i am not asking secretary sebelius to make an exception for one individual. i would be the first to suggest that that would be a dangerous place to go. we don't want individual cabinet members or politicians or anyone else making decisions about who's going to get an organ and who's not. what we want is a system that works, and the current system doesn't work. for kids who are good transplant candidates and have the acute need but aren't yet 12 years old. and so i am urging secretary sebelius as strongly as i can to exercise the discretion that the law gives to her to change the policy, and don't change it for one person. change it for a category. i think any