result of criminal activity, like kidnapping, how many were assaulted along the way. this is a crisis that needs to be addressed. i would just point tout my colleagues -- i have in my hand, and i'll ask consent ask unanimous consent that this document be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i would just read from it, mr. president. iit -- this is a release from te u.s. customs and border protection dated may 12, 2014. "as of may 12, 2014, nearly 180 sex offenders were arrested in the rio grande valley sector alone." that's so far in 12014678 in 20. amidst the 47,000 children that have been detained since october

of last year coming across the border, that mixed into this pot of people were, we know, at least 180 convicted sex offenders. this article goes on to point out that additionally, agents arrested more than 50 members of a gang, ms-13, a norre notoriou, and members of another gang called the 18th street gang. for my colleagues' information, many of them have heard about a train that goes up through mexico that many of the migrants from central america take in order to help them make their journey. this train is called "the beas beast." it is sometimes called "the beast of death." and the stories and indeed the books that have been written about this chronicle how

horrendous this trip is, and you can see here in this picture, you have young people and older people sitting on top of this train riding it as far as they can, helping them make their journey up that eastern coast of mexico from central america, the 1,200 miles it would take to get from guatemala city to south texas. many of them travel on this train known as "the beast." the stories of what has happened here of people who have lost their lives, people have been decapitated when the train has gone through tunnels; people have tried to jump on a moving train only to lose limbs, to fall under the train. it will chill your blood. but the fact of the matter is the, the administration, and i deed the entire federal government, needs to deal with this crisis and needs to deal not only with the causes of it but what the effects are and

particularly the humanitarian crisis involving this growing number of unaccompanied children. federal, state, and local authorities along the border have completely been overwhelmed by the influx, and you can imagine the border patrol that is in the business of processing these children as they are detained and handing them off to health and human services and other agencies, their attention has been diverted from their primary mission of border security because they've had to lend a hand to deal with the humanitarian crisis. with so many children arriving day after day and with so many of them lacking any identification documents, it's been tremendously difficult to figure out exactly who they are, why they left home, where they have family, and where they should be sent while their case is being processed. we don't know how many of them have been victims of human trafficking, for example; how many of them might qualify as

refugees under u.s. law; how many of them are actually over the age of 18; and how many of othem might have a criminal record. can anyone at the white house or at the justice department say that the children released are leaving are an actual family member? the senator from arizona alluded to children being shipped from texas to arizona, where they are left at bus stops and elsewhere, basically with a request that they reappear at a given time. but, of course, 90%, i'm told, never show back up. -- at their court appointment. for that matter, can the administration say with certainty that none of these children hav handed over to an t with a criminal record? the answer to both of these questions is "no." in short, mr. president, this is a complete mess, and the resources available to texas and u.s. officials are under enormous strain.

the administration estimates that roughly 60,000 of these unaccompanied children will be apprehended this fiscal year, perhaps twice that many may be apprehended next year. you can see the trend here, mr. president. and of course all we know from this chart is what it was before the president's deferred action announcement. and we know what it is now. but the trend line is undeniable and appears to be growing at an exponentiaexponential rate. the crisis we're facing now represents a tragic and painful example of the law of unintended consequences. two years ago when the president stood in the rose garden and announced a unilateral administrative change in u.s. immigration policy, he probably thought he was doing a good thing. but between that policy change and his broader failure to uphold our immigration laws -- indeed, his statement that he

essentially will not enforce broad swaths of those laws -- the president has created an extremely dangerous incentive for children and their parents to cross into the united states. under these sorts of treacherous and horrific circumstances. well, in other words, the policies that were supposed to be adopted for humanitarian purposes to help these children have created a genuine humanitarian disaster for these same supposed beneficiaries of this unilateral policy. while there is widespread violence and poverty in central america, sadly, that is not something that's entirely new, and it is not the cause of our current crisis. president obama's immigration policies, primarily his policy of nonenforcement, have encouraged untold numbers of parents and children to make a

shockleshockingly dangerous jouy through mexico riding "the beast" some of whom have been suggested to unknown horrors and treatments at the hands of the very same people that were paid to transport them. the stories i've read dhait it stops a-- indicate that it stops along the way. people are held at gunpoint and if they don't turn over money to their would-be assailant, then they are threatened with being shot and even killed. while we may have a rough idea of how many children actually are crossing into america, we will never know with certainty how many actually start that journey and who never make it; how many die along the way or are kidnapped or are perhaps sexually abused or mistreated because of the lawless conditions under which this takes place. but we do know that the massive surge in unaccompanied minors is

directly attributable to actions taken or not taken by the administration. therefore, i would implore president obama to do five things immediately. first, he should immediately declare that the so-called deferred action program that i referred to earlier that he unilaterally ordered in 2012, he should declare that this deferred action program does not apply to the children currently arriving at the border. one aspect of enforcement is deterrence, and so deterring the children from ever making -- starting that long, dangerous trek has got to be part of the solution. secondly, the president should immediately discourage people in central america and elsewhere from sending their children on such a dangerous journey. mr. president, i'd ask for -- unanimous consent for two more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: number three, the

president should immediately begin to enforce all u.s. immigration laws and engage with the congress in any quhaings that he thinks are -- in any changes that he thinks are warranted, not to simply ignore the ones that he finds convenient or politically expedient. number four, she immediately take steps -- he should immediately take steps to enforce that texas and the other u.s. border states have the resources they need to address this ongoing humanitarian crisis. and, five, he should immediately start working with the mexican government to improve security at mexico's southern border. this is a 500-mile border between mexico and guatemala that if it were better secured would deter many of these children and other migrants from coming through mexico and subjecting themselves to these dangerous conditions in the first place. if the president did all five of those things, not only would it help us resolve the current crisis, but it with a also help us prevent similar crises from

erupting in the future. these children are being preyed on by drug traffickin cartels an traffickers. sadly, when they arrive here, we still have no way of guaranteeing their safety because of lack of an adequate plan to deal with this humanitarian crisis. mr. president, president obama effectively created this problem and now he has an opportunity to work with us to fix it. i can only hope he does the right thing. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, as a senator from a western state, as is my friend from texas, i just hope the american people understand that the only thing the republicans can do, for whatever happens, is blame president obama. oh, it rained today, it's president obama.

how about the most obvious poi point? that the republican house has failed to take up an immigration bill. the senate did it in a bipartisan way. i applaud that bipartisanship. we did it a long time ago. and the fact that the republican house refuses to do it, never passes the lips of my republican friends in the senate. if we want to correct our immigration system, we've got to sit down and do the hard work, just like we did in the senate. there is no question that we're facing a crisis, with children from central america running away from gangs and violence and rape and deprivation. there's no doubt about it. and the fact of the matter is, we can deal with that, but we have to look at the laws, and

that's why we want to set the rules in a bill. there's lawlessness because we haven't updated our laws. for example, we have to make sure that these short-term holding facilities have humane conditions. we can do that by law. so i just want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, because it's cloudy one day, don't blame the president. because it rains the next day, don't blame the president. if you wake up with a sore throat, don't blame the president. and when you've got trouble at the border, look at your own party, who has held up immigration reform. if we can do it over here, they can do it over there. and the whole world is watching. this is the same way with veterans. i'm hoping and praying that this new effort by senator sanders

and senator mccain will bear fruit here on the v.a. bill. but, remember, the republicans filibustered the last bernie sanders bill, which would have added clinics, which would have addressed the problems, and they filibustered it. so, you know, just keep your ear open here. now, we have a chance to address so many issues. i talked about immigration. i talked about veterans. we have a chance now to deal with the student loan crisis -- and it is a crisis. thesthe student loan debt is $12 trillion. that's more an credit card debt. in my home state, the average amount owed by a borrower in 2012 was more than $25,000. that's a 65% increase from 2004. in the same time period, the

number of californians with outstanding student loan debt increased by 60%. in addition, in 2012, there were 641,000 californians over the age of 50 who were still paying down their student loans, and more than 6.8 million people over 50 nationwide still paying off their student loans. this is a crisis that must be addressed. it is important to our nation's economy. it is important to the future of our families, to our children, and our grandchildren. it is time to act. and i have to say, senator warren has been a tremendous leader on this. we can take an important step toward addressing this dire situation by passing senator warren's bank on students, the emergency loan refinancing afnlgact.it would help millionsf

americans refinance their loans at lower interest rates, put more money in their pockets, and i have to say, it's kind of a no-brainer. when you have more money in your pocket than you had before, you're going to spend it in your communities. i am so proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. sadly, even though the federal government is the biggest student loan lender, it is making billions of dollars in profits each year and it doesn't allow its borrowers to refinance its existing student loans when rates are low, and that is wrong. our middle class is hurting. the new york federal reserve bank and consumer financial are warning that student loans are an anchor on our economy. i have to say, again talking about our president, when he took office, there was a crisis. we were losing 700,000 jobs a

month. he has turned it around, and we are month after month creating over 200,000 jobs, and we've restored all those jobs that we lost. but why would we keep this anchor, student loan debt, on our economy? for example, students can't buy cars because they have so much in student loan debt. they can't buy houses. andrea from san francisco writes -- quote -- "my boyfriend and i both have student debt. he started with $90,000. he's gotten it down to $50,000 after ten years. i recently finished my masters and i have $56,000 in debt. this has kept us from saving for a house, purchasing a car, doing things day to day that would boost the economy, like shopping and going out to eat." and patrick from thousand oaks wrote to me, he says "i pay half

of my monthly wages to cover the interest alone on my loan. we're still -- worse still, many young americans cannot save enough to start a family." stef know from pacific grove we are finally having enough to start a family. my husband has been paying a loan for t-pb -- for ten years. doubling the cost of his college education. it is not fair. if the fed sets interest rates low for everyone else, why not for students? student debt is not only a drag on the american economy, it is tearing at the fabric of our american dream. i read last week, mr. president, that for the first time the majority of people don't really believe the dream will be there for them as it was for you, as it was for me. and you know, when 40 million people in america are struggling with a combined $1.2 trillion in

student debt, it's no wonder the american dream is elusive. i have 3.7 million californians dealing with $97 billion in student loans, and much of these loans are stuck at outrageously high interest rates. 7%, 8%, 9%. and with interest rates this high, it is hard for anyone to pay off their debt. and it's really hard for recent graduates who are just launching their careers. in order to help the nearly 40 million americans with student debt, senate democrats have introduced this plan, with the leadership of senator warren. it's a simple plan. the idea is to let borrowers refinance their outstanding student loan debt. we're at a time of record loan interest. i am asking rhetorically, is it fair to charge 7%, 8%, 9% interest when the federal government lends money to banks at less than 1%?

listen, the people who have borrowed money to pay for college or send their child to college, they're trapped with these exorbitant interest rates. and the private student loans can even be worse. i've seen 10% and 11%. the senate democratic proposal would allow borrowers of both federal and private student loans to refinance from their high rates into much lower rates. the rates would be 3.86% for undergraduates, 5.41% for graduates and 6.41 for the parents who have helped their kids. now those are the rates the democrats and republicans agreed on last year, and those are the rates that new borrowers received this past school year. but the older borrowers are stuck in these exorbitant rates, and they can't refinance. so we believe if those lower rates are good for new borrowers, why would we not

allow them for those who have been stuck in this vicious cycle of these high rates? these young people, they're saddled with this debt not because they went to the mall and bought a lot of clothes. they worked hard to learn new skills that will benefit our nation and help keep us strong, and they deserve a fair shot at saving and building a career and having a family. matthew from antelope, california, wrote to me saying -- quote -- "i've never worked harder on one single goal than to be the first in my family to gain a degree in higher ed. i've been on the dean's list every semester, but the ever-present fear of paying off the thousands of dollars of interest is overwhelming, and i am struggling to see past it." then he says "if big banks which collapsed our financial system are able to borrow at zero

percent i don't see students who will ultimately grow our nation, cannot borrow at those same rates." matt from newport beach, california, says "i'm grateful for my college education. as the son of middle-class parents, i knew college was an investment in my future, despite the fact that i have to take out loans." he says "i even graduated in three years and i served as a resident advisor to keep costs down. however my student loan debt is a major debt. it affects my ability to achieve certain milestones like buying a house, able to save for retirement and says i support toefrts refinance loans at low interest rates, rates comparable to those in the real estate market. please take action. with more affordable student loans, my generation can grow this economy." well, matt, matthew and their classmates who worked so hard to achieve their dreams deserve a fair shot.

and tomorrow morning we'll have a chance to make achieving the american dream a little bit easier for mat, matthew and all our college students. i stand with matt, matthew, stephanie and andrea and the other 40 million americans with student loans. what we're saying is simple; very, very simple. we want to give students who are trapped in those high interest rates a chance to refinance. and you know how we pay for it? by saying that those billionaires who aren't paying at least as much as their secretaries, pay at least as much as that. it's called the buffett rule. and i can't imagine a better way to pay for this than that. i urge my colleagues, senate in the house and republicans, to stand with my constituents and their own constituents by voting to let us move forward to consider the bank on students act. and with that, mr. president, i thank you for the time, and i yield back my time, and i also

note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i rise to speak today on our -- on behalf of our veterans. i'm sure to talk about both challenge and opportunity. challenge is the problems we face with our veterans administration. and that is that we're not getting the care for our veterans that they need and that wall want them to have and that they so very much deserve. but i think that we also have a real opportunity because we've been work on legislation and we have both legislation on the republican side of the senate and on the democrat side and now we're working to bring those two

pieces of legislation together. and so i think that this creates a real opportunity and that is a vitally important opportunity, one that we grab and that we address on behalf of our veterans. and that is that we make sure that we come together on bipartisan legislation that fixes the veterans administration health care system and that takes care of our veterans. and i believe that the solution, the real key to solving the problem is choice. or another way to put it might be access to health care. i think that not only solves the problem we've seen with these wait lists but also the problem of distance, which is also an issue and it's a challenge that we see in states like my own. for example, in our state, the

issue truly is distance. other places, it's access to health care. we know, for example, in places like phoenix, veterans were put on wait lists and in that way denied access to care. and that is absolutely unacceptable. absolutely unacceptable. and so the veterans' choice act, which i'm pleased to cosponsor with a number of my fellow colleagues, i think solves that problem and it solves not only the access or the wait list problem but also, as i've said, the distance problem essentially by providing choice, meaning if a vet can't get access to a veterans' health care facility then the veteran can go to another health care provider. and i believe that works for the vet and it works for the health care provider. the veteran can go to a hospital

or a clinic that has the service he or she needs if he can't get into the v.a. facility in a timely way, and then that hospital or clinic is reimbursed just as it were a medicare patient. and clearly our health care system has the facilities in place, the resources to handle that -- that type of reimbursement, just like they do for medicare patients. now, i want to talk about the distance issue for just a minute because in north dakota, the distance issue is the one that we face. for example, in north dakota, it's about an 800-mile round trip from williston to the fargo -- to the v.a. health care system in fargo. now, some services, as we all know, are provided for cboc's, community-based operating clinics, and we have those aren't the state.

but where we don't have a cboc or where they're not able to get the service they need from that cboc, or walk-in clinic, then it can be an 800-mile trip to get services. not too long ago, i held an open forum in williston, north dakota, which as many people sn the sight of an in-- this as many people know is the sight of a great energy boon. in williston, we now produce about a million barrels a day of oil, second only to the state of texas. and so we have a tremendous number of people moving into this region. we're the fastest-growing state in the nation. and we have veterans there who are driving long distances to get medical services. so this is a different challenge than we face in some of the centers, like phoenix, where they were waiting to get patient care. in our case, they're having to drive long distances.

as i say, 800 miles round trip from williston, 400 miles to fargo and then 400 miles back. i recently held a forum up in williston to discuss this issue and look for sliewgz o solutionf of our veterans. i met with veterans. i met with veterans' service officers and also health care providers from the region. and i talked to two vets who told me their story about trying to get health care. now, we have a walk-in clinic, a cboc, community-based operating clinic, in williston, and it was two cases where veterans needed some health care services. in one case, because they couldn't -- the first veteran couldn't get it at the local cboc, that individual took a day to drive to fargo 400 miles, stayed in a hotel, next day went in and got those services,

stayed in a hotel that night and then drove back the third day. so he had to take three days off of work to get services, had to drive 800 miles round trip, had to be put up in a hotel for two nights. now, all that is reimbursed as far as the travel and the stay, by the v.a. s -- so for a relatively straightforward procedure, the v.a. paid a lot more and inconvenienced that veteran terribly and cost him money because that individual had to take three days off from work. that doesn't make any sense. second case. second case. a veteran, similar situation, wanted to get the service at the local cboc, wasn't able to do that, but instead of driving all the way to fargo and doing what the first veteran did that i just described, the second individual just went into the local clinic or hospital in

williston and got the service that afternoon. but unfortunately, the second veteran is now still trying to get reimbursement out of the v.a. for that procedure. the individual in the second case didn't have to take three days off from work, which is smart, and frankly saved the v.a. a lot of money because it wasn't a case where you had to drive down, get reimbursed for that, stay overnight three nights in a motel, actually save the v.a. money, but still hasn't gotten reimbursement for the cost of that medical treatment because the v.a. could or does provide that service in fargo. but again, it's not -- in that situation, unless that veteran is reimbursed, you are not truly serving the veteran and frankly not doing the sensible thing to save the taxpayer money. that's why the veterans' choice act that i am cosponsoring with others again is the solution because we provide choice and we

provide access. if the veteran can't get that service in a timely way in the local community, then the veteran can access another health care facility, and that's why the legislation works. so i have offered -- and of course now we're working on bringing two bills together, the veterans' choice act, but then also legislation offered by senator bernie sanders. that legislation is ensuring veterans access to care act. and i think we can bring them together and i think we can get a good solution that serves everybody. most importantly, that serves our veterans. but we need to serve all of our veterans, all of our veterans regardless of where they live. and that's why i have offered simple clarifying language.

this is a technical fix. it would clarify and ensure that if a veteran cannot get service at a cboc, then that veteran can go to a local health care provider on the same basis as an individual who lives more than 40 miles away from the walk-in clinic. this legislation, this clarification is important to ensure that a veteran is not in any way actually disadvantaged by having a walk-in clinic in the local community and that all vets can access services on the same basis. again, it's because of the way this legislation is coming together that requires that if you are within 40 miles of a walk-in clinic or you have to wait more than 14 days, then you can go to another health care provider, but if either one of

those criteria apply, you are within the 40 miles, you are within the 40-mile radius, okay, and you can see a doctor within -- or you get an appointment within 14 days, then you have to go to the v.a. that works and that's consistent only if you applied both criteria to the same clinic, to the same health care center. what i mean is this -- remember the example i gave just a minute ago. williston, north dakota, fargo, north dakota. in williston, you have got a walk-in clinic. in fargo, you have got a full hospital, full v.a. medical center, okay? take the test now that we're applying in this legislation. 40 miles, if you're within 40 miles, you have to go to the v.a. facility as long as you can get in within 14 days, but that 14 days has to also apply to the

facility that's within that 40-mile radius. otherwise, you get an inconsistent, unfair result and actually disadvantage somebody who is within 40 miles of a walk-in clinic versus somebody who is outside that radius. let me give two examples to illuminate what i'm saying. you have got a vet, lives in williston, north dakota. if he can get an appointment within -- he is within 40 miles of that facility, he goes in, he gets his shot or whatever it is in that facility, no problem, but what happens if he can't, if that walk-in clinic doesn't supply the service? what does he do? well, if the 14-day rule applies to the fargo v.a. hospital, even though he is within 40 miles of

the cboc, if the cboc doesn't provide that service, the walk-in clinic, he still has to drive 800 miles round trip for that shot that i just talked about a minute ago or that service, two veterans that i described a minute ago. so he still has to travel 800 miles to get service. take another individual. he lives 41 miles from that walk-in clinic. right? even if the fargo v.a. can take him within 14 days, he can still go get local service in williston, can't he? why? because he is 41 miles away. so ask yourself, the veteran that lives within 39 miles of that walk-in clinic, right, he might have to drive 800 miles round trip to get a service that the individual who is 41 miles from that facility can go get in the local community.

does that make sense? i mean, that's the kind of thing we have got to make sure we get right so that all veterans, regardless of where they live, get the same fair and consistent treatment. that's why i am saying as we put this legislation together, we have got to be careful to make sure that we get that kind of fair and consistent result so this legislation serves all of our veterans. it takes care of all of our veterans, and that they truly all have that access. whether the problem is a wait list or long distances. let's make sure this works for all of them. believe me, they are out there, every one of them has put their life on the line and stepped up. all of them have done that for us. let's make sure as we work through and file this legislation, something that i know we can -- on a bipartisan

basis we can get this done, let's make sure that it works for all of our veterans and it works well and it works consistently and it truly solves the problem, and that is that we make sure that they get the health care they deserve. madam president, thank you so much. with that, i yield the floor. mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for up to three minutes and immediately following my recognition, the senator from iowa, senator harkin, be recognized for as much time as he might consume. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. isakson: and i thank the distinguished senator from iowa for relinquishing a little time to let me step in. i'm very grateful. madam president, on the evening of june 8, this past saturday, in gainesville, georgia, captain william hall davison, united states navy, retired, passed away. it was a significant day in our family for many reasons. he is my wife's father.

he is my children's grandfather. he is my grandchildren's great grandfather. and his wife gaye, 97 years old, survives him. bill davison was 99 years old. he flew -- he was a pilot in world war ii in the south pacific, tracking the submarines from the japanese navy and cargo ships from the japanese navy to make sure our intelligence was the best it could be. like so many of america's generation, he sacrificed four and a half years of his life in defense of our country, made a career of the united states navy, never talked about it and only rarely did he say anything about it, but when he did, he talked about how proud he was to be able to wear the uniform of the united states of america. so while it was a tragic night for my wife, a tragic loss for our family, it's a reminder to all of us as americans that our greatest generation is passing at a very rapid rate. soon none will be here with us that stormed the beaches of normandy, flew the skies of the pacific or fought on the ground at the battle of the bulge, but we are all here today, you and

i, madam president, because of the sacrifice of those people. the greatest sacrifice in the history of mankind. in fact, the most unselfish act of humanity i have ever read about, heard about or was ever taught about was that generation that landed on normandy beach on june 6, 1944, and freed america and freed the rest of the world from the totalitarian government of adolf hitler. so as my family pauses to mourn the loss of a father-in-law for me, a grandfather for my children, the great grandfather for my grandchildren and a father for my wife, we take joy in knowing that one member of our family was a part of a generation that saved all of humanity for democracy and for freedom and for liberty. for his wife gaye who is in wowrng today at age 97, we wish her a continued prosperous life and we thank her for her sacrifice, because like so many women, the wives of the soldiers of world war ii, they kept the home fires burning. they worked in the factories. they made sure that america worked while their husbands were off to defend us. so while we had a tragic loss of

life in our family on sunday night, june 8, we had a positive remembrance of all that has been done for our family by the brave men and women who fought for the united states of america. may god bless william hall davison for his life and may god bless the united states of america, and i yield back. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, first i ask unanimous consent that rae lee, jacqueline vazquez and jay will inson be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: madam president, i want to speak for a few minutes on the bank in favor of student loan refinancing act, which is the measure before the senate now, also referred to as the fair shot for college affordability. we have been calling this agenda a fair shot, but let's be honest about it. it's just plain common sense.

i don't want to go any further without thanking the present occupant of the chair, the distinguished senator from massachusetts for her dynamic and great leadership. on this issue and these kinds of issues that affect college affordability, and especially this overburdensome student debt that is hanging not only over students but our entire country. now, there are some things that i said are just plain common sense. raising the minimum wage is good for american workers, increases demand, increases the g.d.p. common sense. equal pay for equal work. the right thing to do for women, common sense. and this bill that lets struggling student loan borrowers refinance their loans is not only just good for them but good for our country, good for our economy. families across the country are struggling with student loan debt. it's not only holding them back personally, it's holding them back as a nation. it's holding them back from buying homes, starting families. it's holding back doctors from

practicing primary care. it's hurting people trying to save for retirement. it's hurting rural communities that are working to attract doctors or lawyers or veterinarians or whatever. but you don't have to take my word for it. some of the nation's most prominent economic officials have raised concerns over this student debt issue. members of the federal reserve board's federal open market committee in march of 2013, over a year ago, expressed concern at -- quote -- the high level of student debt, end quote, is a risk to aggregate household spending over the next three years. the treasury department's office of financial research has stated that student debt could significantly depress demand for mortgage credit and dampen consumption. again, a drag on our economy. new york fed president william dudley told reporters in november of last year -- quote -- "people can have trouble with the student loan debt burden, unable to buy cars,

unable to buy homes, end quote. so i'm pleased to see that president obama has taken action to ease the burden of federal student loan debt for some struggling borrowers. i am pleased to see also that the administration is taking critical steps to ensure that service members are getting the benefits they have earned through their service to our country, but it is very clear that much more needs to be done. that's why this bill before us is so important. it will provide relief to student borrowers who took out loans several years ago only to see the rates for student loans have since gone down. some senators may remember that this issue presented itself last year, so as the chair of the -- of the authorizing committee, i worked with the members on both sides of the aisle and in the administration, we had meetings in the white house, to pass the bipartisan student loan certainty act which lowered interest rates and also authorized the interest rates at

3.86% last year for undergraduates, 5.41% for stafford loans for graduate students, 6.41% for parent and graduate-plus loan borrowers. we want borrowers who may have taken out hones with higher rates in the past to take advantage of these lower rates. the department of education estimated that 25 million borrowers would likely refinance their existing student loans under this legislation. it will save them money. it will give them money in their pockets that they can now go out and start buying things and increase what we need to have done in our country, which is aggregate demand. the legislation also allows student loan borrowers to refinance their private loans into the federal program. very important. the bill provides those who meet certain eligibility requirements and who are in good standing, they have the option of refinancing their high-interest private loans down to rates offered to new federal student

loan borrowers this year. those who refinance will also have access to the benefits and protections of the federal student loan program. like i said, this bill is just common sense. american consumers have been able to take advantage of historically low interest rates on their homes. with cars -- i have heard a number of people who have come out heed an here and said, if ya low-interest loan on your 25- or 30 year house mortgage and you could come down and refinance, you'd be foolish not to do it and you should do it. why shouldn't we let students do the same thing? so it's good for them and good for the economy. now, again, i just want to say that while this issue of student debt is critically important, it's by no means the only issue that deserves our attention in higher education policy. right now i think it may be the

most critical, simply because of the huge debt burden overhanging our students. i should say "our former students" and their families. but there are some other things that we have to pay attention to. a understand iand in the comingn to release from our committee -- at least from the chairman's mark, the issues that we should be tacklings in a comprehensive reauthorization of the higher education act. our committee over the last several months has held more than ten hearings on issues ranging from teacher prep -- preparation to accreditation. these hearings have been bipartisan. i want to thank senator alexander for his partnership in making sure that we had good hearings. as we move forward, i just want to say that our committee is committed to remaining on a bipartisan path towards take up a higher education act --

reauthorization. so what i plan to put forward is consistent with that bipartisan approach. it simply provides clear guidelines based on the work we've done already. so the higher education act that we'll be coming forward with in the next few weeks will cover basically four topics. one, affordability. two, student debt. three, accountability. and, four, transparency. as it relates to affordable cart relates to affordability, we thoap enter into a partnership with states, incentivizing states that make strong investments in their systems of higher education. the one thing that came through in our hearings on why tuition as gone up so much and college costs have gone up so much for students and their families over the last 20 to 30 years, well, there's a lot -- a lot of

indices of why that's havmentd bu--happened. but the single largest factor has been over the last 20230 --e last 20 to 30 years a decrease in state funding. states quit putting money into higher education, the schools raised their tuition, and the schools come to the federal government or the private sector to borrow money for their school. so we plan to offer incentives for states that step up to the bar and that provide more vigorous funding for higher education, that they will get a better support from the federal government. with student debt, we plan to help student borrowers better manage their loan debt through measures such as better upfront and exit counseling on their loans.

again, i would hope that tomorrow we would pass our bill, the bill that the -- that senator warren has worked so hard on an championed. i would hope that we'd pass it and get it behind us. i fully intend to take the measures in that bill and incorporate it into our broader bill on student debt. on accountability, we plan to hold schools more accountable to both students and taxpayers by ensuring that no federal money that goes to students that then go to the schools is used for things like marketing, advertising, that's used to drive up enrollments. no, schools want to do that they're not -- under our proposal, they wouldn't do that with taxpayers' money. on transparency, we hope to empower students and families by giving students and families better information from the

beginning of the college process 0eon how they select a school al the way to making sure they know all the repayment options when they graduate and can make the right choice for their particular circumstances. what we need is a good comparison. if a student wants to go to college "a" they can go online, they can find out what the costs are per credit hour, what the tuition is, other forms of information on just what they can expect from that school. graduation rates, time to graduate, all kind of things like that. they can hit the "compare" button and then go to college "b" and ask the same questions of college "b." hit the "compare" button and go to college "c." and you can compare these schools. and i think students and their families would make wiser decisions if they could really compare one school to another. that's hard to do today, almost impossible to do today.

but that's the kind of transparency that parents and children, families need to have. so i look forward to sharing that proposal, as i said, in the next few weeks. i state publicly anyone who's got ideas on this and would like to have it incorporated in our bill, please come to our staff or see me, and we'll try to work this through. as i said, i want to -- i do want to approach this on a bipartisan basis and work this out. tha higher education is too important to our society, to our future as a country to just be a partisan-type of approach. it has to be bipartisan. so college affordability, skyrocketing student debt, accountability, transparency -- all very high-stakes issues for our students and their families and for our future as a country. certainly in today's difficult economy with young americans in particular struggling to find good employment and a foothold

in life, it is unacceptable to ask students, graduates, and their families to shoulder unnecessarily high student loan interest payments, and that's why this bill is so important for us to pass tomorrow, i guess, when it comes up for a vote. so i hope that we can pass this and then i hope that we can move on with the rest of what we need to do in higher education. as i said, on accountability, on transparency, and affordability. and so if we can get a good vote and pass this student debt bill so that we can start lowering interest rates, that would be the first step towards really addressing the entire issues confronting us in higher education. so, madam president, i hope that we can get bipartisan support for this measure tomorrow, and then we can move on to the other issues we have to address in higher education. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. murphy: madam president? the presiding officer: the? er from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, madam president. before i address the issue of college affordability, i want to speak about another community ravaged by a shooting. the 74th school shooting since sandy hook. 37 school shootings this year alone. more than one a week. 74 shootings since sandy hook. i'll make the comment one more time that we are becoming acome accomplices in these -- accomplices in these mass murders. we are becoming complicit in this murder of children all a across our country when we do nothing, when weig we sit on our hands idly as children are gunned down all across our country. we send a message of acceptance that we can do practical things that will lessen the chance that

people will be killed in our schools and in our homes and in our neighborhoods. i won't go through the list right now, but we also can send a message that enough is enough. and that message, frankly, at this point is probably just as important as the practical effects of the laws that we would change. madam president, thank you for your great work on bringing the issue of college affordability to the point where we have reached a national debate around what we can do to try to relieve families of the crippling debt that is sitting on top of them today. as the youngest member of this body, i perhaps know in as personal terms as anyone else does about what this burden means for me and my wife, who continue to owe money on our student loans, and for our neighbors and friends who are in similar positions. i just want to tell you a story today of one such family, a namesake of mine, the if yo mor.

deny is is 5 years old hansd two kids. his parent parents immigrated hm ireland. his family lived in a small apartment in the bronx. he moved to a town in east haven, connecticut that his father called "the promised land." his father died at the age of 50 when deny i when dennis was just 15 years old. since his father didn't have life insurance, dennis couldn't afford to go to college himself. he found a job with the railroad u he still works at that job, dennis does, making a good living and earning a solid upper-class -- solid upper middle-class salary. dennis wanted to provide a

better life for his family so he worked as much as he could. took as many hours as he could. tiewtook as many extra shifts as possible. he worked on holidays and was eventually able to make his life better, make his family's life a little bit better. they fought a house in killingworth and he hoped his kids would go get to college. one of his daughters has a learning disability. that took up a decent amount of the family's income. but his son was a good student in high school. when dennis jr. was accepted to the university of albany, dennis was so proud that his son would receive the college degree that he never did. dennis jr. had worked since the age of 16 to do his part to be able to afford to go to college. dennis jr. seldom asked his dad for any money. unlike many of his friends, dennis jr. actually graduated within four years. but the family still had to contribute to dennis jr.'s

education. so without any money saved away, with money going to pay for the house and for raising five kids and for their daughter's learning disabilities, dennis had to take out plus loans that ultimately totaled over $100,000. because the interest rate on the loans are fixed at 8.5%, the minimum monthly payments are around $700 to $800 a month. dennis cannot afford to pay this amount, even with his good salary. and frankly like a lot of americans, he didn't realize when he first took out the loans how the interest would add up over four years. nor did he understand how much those monthly payments would be. and the stress of wondering how they're ever going to pay back this huge debt has caused a lot of tension and arguments. sometimes dennis says that he wonders whether he should have let his son go to colleges at all. and even though dennis jr. has a

new, good job earning $20 an hour because of his degree, it is not enough for him to be able to contribute significantly to paying off these loans either. madam president, dennis' 235e78y came to america, got that little apartment in the bronx for reasons that are familiar to nearly every one of us. the idea that if you came to the united states, you had a shot to move and move quickly, a fair shot at economic mobility. my family came from ireland about two generations before dennis', but it was the same reason that brought them here to the united states. and twos education -- and it was education that was the vehicle for advancement. and you know what? it wasn't a myth. it wasn't a story that they just told in maces like ired and italy and poland. it was true that if you came here that -- and did your work and played by the rules and save

add little bit of money, you could go to college and do significantly better than your parents. but the reality is that idea, that truism of america america e home of the greatest level and allah crit of economic mobility in the world is becoming a myth. the odds today that a young person will go to college if their parent didn't is 29%. that is one of the lowest rates in the industrialized rates. 70% of kids whose parent didn't go to college will never go to college. 70% of kids whose parents didn't go to college will essentially be destined to live the same life and take in the same income level that their parents did. that is a stunning lack of economic mobility. and the truth is that it is getting worse specifically for a particular group of americans. for african-americans, the gap

between those with a college degree in the african-american community and the white community has gone from 13 points 20 years ago to 20 points today. that gap for latinos was 18 points 20 years ago. it is 25 today. for african-americans and latinos, that dream of economic mobility is getting even further away than for other folks. america used to be number one in the world with respect to the amount of young adults with college degrees. we're 12th in the world today. in a short period of time we've gone from leading the world in college graduates to becoming rather middling and don't frankly need a college degree for one thing. you don't need a college degree to figure out why less people have college degrees. here it is. since 1989, the cost of college has gone up by 307% and income

for the average family has gone up by 72%. you don't need a degree in mathematics 0 or a graduate degree in rocket science to understand that when you have this disparity between the growth and income and the growth of the cost of college, you are going to leave millions of families on the outside when it comes to accessing the apparatus of opportunity that has historically made this country the place where economic mobility was more real than anywhere else. that is why this piece of legislation this week matters so much because to dennis, the numbers are not going to lie. for dennis, he's going to go from paying 8.5% to about 6.4%. you think that's only two percentage points; that is thousands of dollars in savings for the murphys, thousands of dollars that today they don't have. and that story can be multiplied hundreds of thousands of times over.

we think there's about 300,000 families just in the state of connecticut who are going to be able to access a lower rate of interest based on the legislation that we're going to pass this week. and so, these numbers are pretty stunning, but the fact is that there are stories like dennis' all across my state and all across this country that we can do something about it this week. but, madam president, as senator harkin said -- and let me finish with the thought that this is the beginning of the work that we have to do. the reality is, is that it's really important to give students access to lower-cost loans as we will hopefully do this week. it's really important to lower the borrowing burden for families that have taken out loans. but we have to get serious about this number. we have to get serious about bending this curve so that college isn't 307% more

expensive another 20 years from today. so i would hope in the reauthorization bill that our committee, the help committee, is going to undertake, an idea that has been put forward by myself and senator schatz and senator sanders and senator murray will get a fair airing, and that is the idea that we should start expecting some kp-blt when it comes -- some accountability when it comes to school getting out billions of dollars in federal aid this year. and we have loose accountability standards when it comes to affordability and outcomes, such that a group of schools under the for-profit umbrella under a company called corinthian, has 36% of students defaulting on their student loans. they charge $41,000 for a paralegal degree and the local community college charges $2,500. that is a miserable set of

outcomes, and yet they collect $1.6 billion every year in federal aid. $1.6 billion in federal aid every year. federal aid means you and i, our taxpayer dollars going to a school that is doing nothing about affordability and is delivering really bad outcomes. so this week's bill is real important for the murphys and for hundreds of thousands of families like them. but our work is not done. it's time for us to agree that in addition to making it easier for students and families to afford college, it's finally time for the united states congress to put some real pressure on these schools to do something about the cost of tuition and the quality of degrees that they provide. i'm going to be very excited to cast my vote for this week's legislation for the murphys -- no relation -- and thousands and thousands of families like them in connecticut. i yield back.

the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: dana ahu, during the pendency of the 113th

congress. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: madam president, i rise today because we need a fair shot for the middle class. today in the middle class today a college degree is more important than ever. in hawaii by 2018 about two of three jobs will need some training or a degree past high school but students are struggling to stay ahead. college costs have gone up way beyond inflation and students are borrowing more and more to pay for college. last week i joined several of the women in the senate. we pointed out the student loan debt affects women more. why? because it takes longer to repay a student loan if, as a woman, you're making only 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. i've heard from both men and women in hawaii who are struggling under the burden of student loan debt. people like dawn from honolulu

who told me -- quote -- "i've been teaching for over three years and can barely survive on my paycheck after paying student loans and rent." or karen from hilo who said -- quote -- "two of my three kids have loans that are almost nonpayable given their size. they have a masters and almost completed ph.d., and one is home already using her expertise in our community. the other is coming this fall. our prices are prohibitive enough without excessively high loans hanging over their heads." end quote. these stories are not unique. last year over 20,000 hawaii undergraduates used federal loans to pay for school. in hawaii, the average graduate with a bachelor's degree has over $23,000 in student loan debt. nationwide, overautomatic student loan debt has -- overall student loan debt has

skyrocketed to over $2 trillion. it bears repeating. $1.2 trillion nationwide in student loan debts. that's more than credit card debt or auto debt. the burden of student loan debt makes it very difficult to buy a home or start a family. older federal student loans are stuck at high rates of interest, and there is no option to refinance. private loans often have even fewer consumer protections and higher rates. in 2007, i was on the house-senate conference committee for the bill that created the income-based loan repayment program signed into law by president bush. this week president obama took executive action to help more borrowers cap their student loan payments at 10% of their income. the administration will also expand partnerships with private companies, departments, nonprofits, to increase consumer protections and get the word out

on existing programs. these are positive steps and ones that i've urged the president to take. but the president can only do so much on his own to help with student loan debt. congress needs to do its part. the bill we're discussing on the floor today would allow student loans to be refinanced down to today's low rate for new borrowers. think about it. just as homeowners can refinance a mortgage, we should allow student loans to be refinanced. last year there was overwhelming bipartisan support for a bill keeping student loan rates low for new loans. i ask my republican colleagues to join democrats once again in voting for today's refinancing bill. in addition to today's bill, i want to point out another way we can combat student loan debt. a big reason students are taking on so much debt to go to college is the decline in state and

federal grants. fewer college grants means more reliance on loans, resulting in more student debt. in recent years state support for higher education has dropped. from 2008 to 2012, state higher education spending per student plummeted by 28%. that's a cut of over $2,000 per student on average. at the federal level, the pell grant once was our main commitment to our students. pell grants were the primary form of student aid to help low and moderate income students join and stay in the middle class. like the g.i. bill after world war ii which invested in our veterans, investing in low-income and moderate-income students pays off. from a strictly economic standpoint, we know that these students get degrees, get better jobs and pay taxes.

in the 1970's the federal pell grant covered nearly 80% of the cost of attendance at a four-year in-state public university. today the pell grant covers less than a third. to make matters worse, congress chipped away at pell grant eligibility and completely cut off the year-round pell grant. in 2011, before this year-round program was eliminated, over 1,600 highly motivated hawaii college students used year-round pell grants to help get a degree sooner. they are among 1.2 million students nationwide who used year round pell grants in that year alone. one of those students worbs -- works in my office now. jana vilaniau hu.

she graduated from a school university of hawaii at minoa and now attends richardson's school of law. she used a summer pell grant in 2010 and without it she says she wouldn't have been able to attend summer school and move more quickly toward a degree. vahi is one of many hawaii students who told me how the pell grants helped them. another student told me i would like to thank you for supporting the pell grant program. pell grants have allowed me to increase my education and provided me with a higher-paying job. who would ever think that a country girl from winai who grew up with society telling me we have the lowest reading and math scores in the state of hawaii, the highest of everything such as welfare, crime, teen pregnancy and substan abuse in the state, can get a college degree? today i want to help people from wianai to achieve their dreams she ended. pell grants made it possible for

this native hawaiian, single mother and country girl, as she calls herself, to be graduating with an associate's degree in early childhood education and transferring to the university of hawaii west oahu. with ever-increasing college costs, we should be strengthening pell grants, not cutting back on them. that's why i introduced the pell grant protection act with several of my colleagues. recognizing the importance of pell grants, congress has been providing discretionary funds for this program for over 40 years. it's time to put this program on the strong footing our students deserve by making this a mandatory funded program with a cost-of-living adjustment. the bill would also include an updated clearer version of the year-round pell grant. the bill has the support of 25 national organizations representing students, professors, financial aid administrators, college presidents and advocates for the

middle class. the associated students of the university of hawaii passed a resolution of support and several university of hawaii campus chancellors have also come out in support. i also worked with my colleague, senator mary landrieu of louisiana, on a related pell grant bill, her middle class chance act. senator landrieu's bill would increase the pell award to keep up with college costs and let students use pell grants for more semesters. i look forward to working with chairman harkin on these and other bills to make college more affordable. these efforts are investments in our young people and in our collective future. today, to start, i urge my colleagues to vote for senator warren's refinancing bill. mahalo. i yield back.

mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i had the pleasure of speaking yesterday while you were presiding on the 242nd anniversary of the burning and sinking of the gaspee by rhode island patriots. i am here today to mark the 60th anniversary of a different event that occurred also on that same day, yesterday, june 9, 60 years ago. it was a pivotal moment in the history of the senate and indeed of the country. it was the 1954 army mccarthy hearings and the exchange between joseph welch and joseph mccarthy that changed this city and the world.

six decades ago, america's national mood was marked by anxiety over the looming threat of communism. the victory of world war ii had given way to the gripping tension of the cold war. communist power was on the rise in eastern europe and in china. american forces were at war in korea. here in congress, the house committee on un-american activities worked to sniff out communist subversion within our borders, including the infamous hollywood blacklist. one man in the senate sat out to exploit the fears of that time, and he came to symbolize the fearmongering of that fretful era. joseph mccarthy was a

relatively unknown junior senator from wisconsin when in february of 1950 he delivered a speech accusing secretary of state dean atchison of harboring 205 known members of the american communist party within the state department. the charge was questionable and ill supported, but the brazen accusation struck a nerve with an anxious american public, and senator mccarthy rocketed to fame. thus began a chilling crusade to flush out communist subversion, real or contrived, from every corner of american society. mccarthy's anticommunist witch-hunt seemingly knew no bounds as he launched

investigations or often just allegations of disloyalty on the part of private citizens, public employees, entire government agencies as well as the broadcasting and defense industries, universities, even the united nations. in 1953, the republican party gained a majority in the senate and mccarthy ascended to the chairmanship of the senate committee on government operations and its subcommittee on investigations. from those chairmanships, he dragged hundreds of witnesses before scores of hearings, publicly shaming and berating his targets. his fiery rhetoric and his

remorseless mendacity intimidated critics and challengers. his accusations carried the power to destroy representation representations, careers and lives. madam president, the effect of mccarthyism on 20th century american society has toxic. bryant citizens shied from -- prudent citizens shied from civic engage many. meaningful political dissent withered. criticisms of american foreign policy evaporated. even college campuses, our cradles of intellectual curiosity, were cowed by mccarthyism. supreme court justice william o. douglas called it the black silence of fear. intimidated colleagues in this

chamber gave joe mccarthy broad leeway to abusive congress' constitutional powers of investigation and oversight. harvard law dean irvin griswold described chairman mccarthy as -- quote -- judge, jury, prosecutor, castigator and press agent all in one. this was the regime 60 years ago in 1954 when u.s. army officials accused mccarthy of exerting improper pressure to win preferential treatment for a secrete aide -- subcommittee aide serving as an army private. mccarthy countered that the army accusation was retaliation for his investigations of them. the stage was set.

the countercharges would be adjudicated, of course, in mccarthy's subcommittee on investigations. the so-called army mccarthy hearings held in a packed smoke-filled russell caucus room would last 36 days and be aired on live broadcast television. 20 million americans tuned in during gavel-to-gavel coverage of our nation's first great tv political spectacle, a precursor to the watergate hearings, the iran-contra hearings and the thomas-hill hearings. special counsel to the army in those hearings was an avuncular boston lawyer named joseph welch of the law firm then called hale

and dorr. here in washington, joseph welch was a nobody. he had no office, he had no position, he had no clout. but he was a good lawyer with a dry wit and unflappable misdemeanor, and he also had a sense of fairness, a sense of fairness that was soon to become famously provoked by mccarthy's bullying. and he had that greatest virtue -- courage, the virtue that makes all other virtues possible. on june 9, 1954, joseph welch challenged senator mccarthy's

aide, roy coen, to actually produce mccarthy's supposed secret list of subversives working at defense facilities. since there likely was no such list, mccarthy needed a distraction, so he lit into an accusatory attack in traditional mccarthy-ite way on a lawyer in welch's firm, a young lawyer, indeed an associate within the firm, fred fischer, a young man who was not even in the hearing room to defend himself. accusing him of various communism inclinations and associations. welch responded -- quote --

"until this moment, senator, i think i never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." had senator mccarthy been a smarter man, he would have sensed the warning in those words, but he didn't. he pressed his attack and refused to let up on young fred fisher. welch angrily cut senator mccarthy short. let us not assassinate the lad any further, senator. you have done enough. have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? have you left no sense of decency?

30 words. if you count them, it's just 30 words. but with those 30 words, suddenly something happened, something changed. the emperor suddenly had no clothes. there had been such an avalanche of words from mccarthy over the years, of lies, of accusations, of hyperbole, and these 30 words, these few short sentences stopped all of that roughshod hypocrisy in its tracks. welch declared an end to mccarthy's questioning, and the gallery of onlookers on behalf of a nation burst into

applause. the black and white footage shows mccarthy asking roy cohn what happened? what happened was that a spell was broken. the web of fear woven by mccarthy over washington, d.c., began unraveling. near the end of the hearing, senator stewart symington of missouri faced mccarthy down and after an angry exchange, he rose and walked out to come here to vote. chairman carl mundt of south dakota gaveled the hearing into recess, but joe mccarthy kept on, railing about communist conspiracies, and as he railed on, senators, reporters and

members of the gathered audience steadily filed out of the room, leaving him shouting. the spell was broken. six months later, the senate voted 67-22 to censure senator joseph mccarthy. four years later, he was dead at the age of 48. historians agree he drank himself to death. his fall from grace and demise were nearly as rapid as his rise was meteoric. consistent with the ancient principle climb ugly, fall hard. very often, indeed too often, political outcomes in washington

are determined by the political weight and the wealth of contest ing forces vying for power. it is brute force against brute force. it makes you wonder is that all there is to this? is this just an arena of combat where huge special interests lean against each other trying to shove each other around each for their own greed and benefit? well, this incident 60 years ago is an eternal lesson of what a difference one person can make, a regular american, a nobody in washington. good at his craft, good in his

character, and in the right place at the right time, a man who knew it was right broke the fever of a virulent political frenzy that had captured washington. one private lawyer's sincere, direct outrage at a cruel attack on his young associate. a few words from a boston lawyer who had just had enough turned the tide of history. madam president, may we never forget in this world of vast and often corrupt political forces, the power of one