quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: thank you, mr. president. i mr. crapo: i come before the senate to discuss the agreement between the p-5 plus 1 nations

and iran. mr. crapo: with regard to iran's capacity to build a nuclear weapon. i strongly oppose this agreement for a number of different reasons. before i get into the specifics of those reasons, i want to back up a little bit about two years ago. i serve on the banking committee, which i don't think most people in america realize is the committee that has jurisdiction over the sanctions legislation, which deal with iran and other sanctions legislation throughout the world. we have over the years developed a very powerful and effective sanction regime with regard to iran. this regime has involved not only the united states but the participation and agreement of nations around the globe, including sanctions that were followed by us through the united nations. those sanctions increasingly after four or five different investigators of them, increasingly tightening them down, had worked very effectively to cause iran to need to come to the negotiating

table. i think most americans realize that the reason why iran came to the negotiating table was the fact that our sanctions were working. in fact, a couple of years ago, we had another version of new sanctions legislation to tighten down our sanctions even further and increase the leverage that the united states had on iran in order to try to cause iran not only to come to the negotiating table but also to agree to stop development of a nuclear weapon. at that time, the president asked us in the banking committee -- i was the ranking member at the time -- to pull back our proposed new sanctions legislation, and he gave as his explanation the fact that he wanted to open up new negotiations with iran and did not want to cause an offense that would cause iran to back away from the negotiating table.

i disagreed at the time. in fact, my position was that if the united states wanted to go into negotiations, we should have congress pushing for a new round of sanctions legislation, so that the president could say honestly and effectively to iran that we needed to get a workable deal put together or we had a congress that was ready to move forward with ever-increasing and more effective sanctions. yet the president said no, and his party controlled the senate at that time, we couldn't get the chairman to agree, even though the chairman and i had worked together with others to develop it. it was my position that if the united states was going to have

frequent sanctions, it was my position they should have some good-faith efforts on their party if we drew the legislation and we should have asked for the release of our prisoners. most americans are aware that we have four political prisoners, at least four, in iran today who are being wrongfully held. one of them, past or is a he'd ebb demme, has been in iran now since 2012. last and jason jason rezaian, from 2014. and amir hekmati a prisoner since 2011. and yet the administration would not ask for the release of these prisoners as a token of good faith in the start of the

negotiations even though we were will to withdraw our proposing sanctions to start these negotiations. i felt that was a mistake at the outset. the united states gave up its leverage and refused to ask for a concession as we moved forward in these negotiations. yet it has set up a pattern for what happened since. well, everyone i think knows the history of that negotiations. it's important to note at that time the president assured us, he assured us that he would not enter into an agreement that would allow iran to ever have a nuclear weapon. and that we would have ironclad inspection and verification in place sincen that. where are we today? we are now faced with an agreement that cements in place iran's stockpiles, that it allows iran to develop a nuclear

weapon over time, even if it complies with the agreement, and does not have any kind of an effective sanctions in regime. it the does not, in the remainder of my remarks i would like to cite three or four reasons we should reject this agreement. first, it does not prohibit a nuclear bomb. second, it does not have ironclad inspections. third, it provides release of money to bolster terrorist around the globe. fourth, it relieves embargoes. fourth, release omissions and finally, it will create a new

regional arms race, dangerous to the entire world. let me go back through these. first, it does not prohibit iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. even if iran complies with the agreement which it does not have a very good record of doing with regard to its agreements, it will still be able to develop a nuclear weapon. the agreement fails to roll back iran's nuclear develop program beyond a one-year breakout period. and it will only include ir 4, 5, and 6 centrifuges --this is getting into the weeds but this is a refuge agreement that iran has been working on and engaging in, and the agreement says -- and this is exactly from the agreement -- for ten years it will only include the ir 4, 5, and 6, in other words, the

only application of the agreement is to these centrifuges during a ten-year period. during the ten years -- again quoting -- iran will continue ir 6 and ir 8 and commence testing of 30 ir 6 and 8 centrifuges and up to 30 ir of and ir 8 centrifuges. it does not dismantle any of its nuclear sites of concern,. none of them are dismantled. it recognizes iran as a de facto nuclear state and with all the centrifuges that iran now has, simply has to disconnect them and store them in another room. iran is allowed to keep 6,000 centrifuges and 300 kilograms of

uranium. the iran is able to conduct nuclear research during the agreement and, in fact, amazingly the president abets iron in its nuclear technology and infrastructure. that's not even the end. one of the provisions of the agreement i find most outrageous is that it requires the united states government to oppose state and local sanctions against iran and amazingly to help -- quote -- "strengthen iran's ability to quote and respond to nuclear security threats including sabotage as well as enable security prohibitions. ." in other words, if it -- this seems to imply that the united states will need to help iran

protect its capacity. now, i'm sure the argument will be made this is only to help iran develop its peaceful nuclear weapons capacity but the agreement isn't clear, and at a minimum, these kinds of things should be made clear in the agreement. so let's look at the inspection. assuming the tehran will comply and not build a bomb for ten years, does the verification system that we have adopted prohibit that? well, the agreement does not provide ironclad verification. i think americans are becoming aware that not only do we not know what the inspection agreement is, the united states does not partnership in the inspection regime. it is turned over to the united nations.

the iaea that does these kinds of inspections are brought into it and they have a separate agreement with iran that is not disclosed to the united states or any other nation. we -- if it is accurate, we don't know but it seems to imply that iran will not even allow the iaea inspectors on the site. these are concerns that are serious, yet we cannot even confirm them and we're dealing with that without even the agreement in front of us. moreover, the -- as we've moved in this process we've identified the sites that are different kinds, the declared sites, one they admit exist, and as to declared sites, the iran must first tell us what

they are. we don't have on-site inspection to determine that. as to undeclared sites, they are able to have at least 14 days through the iaea to say that we think there is but we're not sure and iran is able to negotiate where there is such a site. and if the iaea and iran cannot agree to a joined inspection of a site, there can be further delays up to 64 days before anybody can take a look at these sites. again, we don't know whether those persons will be required to look at the sites will be iranians showing the united nations inspectors what they want to see or whether they will be united nations inspectors, but we're pretty sure they aren't going to be united states inspectors. and here it's a very weak inspection regime certain to result in the same outcomes that

we've seen for the last ten years as we have tried to inspect their nuclear weapons. that brings me to the third issue, the get relief through this agreement. the top if not the top sponsor of terrors throughout the world. they've been part of hundreds in the middle east, some say many americans have died from iran-sponsored terrorism than nibbles. anyone else. weep the estimate that i think is fair is approximately $100 billion will be released to iran very quickly under this agreement. just by can comparison,

$100 billion to iran in terms of the size of the economy is approximately the same as $4.5 trillion to the united states respecting our economy, it's a quarter of the size of iran's economy. those who say iran will simply use these sanctions relief dollars in order to strengthen their economy ignore the reality that iran today has a weak economy because of the sanctions and plowed money into the terrorism. there's no doubt this will result in an increased support of terrorism across the globe. next, the agreement dangerously and needlessly helps -- all i've discussed, at the very end we find out that in order to complete the deal iran and russia introduced new unrelated issues that the administration

willingly conceded to. we lifted the existing conventional weapons results on iran and on the ballistic missile on iran. russia is already today going forward with selling advanced s- 300 missiles to iran, making future military actions for difficult. and it's inexcusable omissions. first as i said at the outset this does not free the americans who are there. secondly, it does not bring the hostages to free. and that does not assure as i've indicated earlier that we don't have violations of agreement

before the ten years. it does not require any accounting of past nuclear weapons cheating by iran. meaning it does not require them to disclose where their facilities are. it does not require disclosure of the military component of iran's nuclear program. this means they give us no information about the and is sites are off-limits. where do would you expect them to build a nuclear weapon? it does not require iran's ballistic missile capacity and does not ban develop development. we have -- we have lifted the ballistic missile embargoes. and finally, the agreement does not require iran to stop

sponsoring international terrorism. the agreement is sufficient in so many different ways. finally, the agreement creates instability in the middle east and a new arms race. $100 billion is an immediate windfall to iran, which the administration acknowledges will partly go into helping terrorism through iran shortly. other states have said they will have to move forward their uranium enrichment to keep up. and the president wrote congress to announce that stepped-up security for the middle east allies. further evidence that it will destable the area through the region. and the administration has

agreed to permit us to sites that will take weeks or months before inspectors step a foot into the facility if they're able to do so at all. some experts acknowledge that that is sufficient to hide or remove any evidence of smaller activities leading to a nuclear weapon. and egypt and saudi arabia have already signaled that they're going to embark on nuclear weapons programs sparking a new arms race and the possibility of an weapon in the middle east does not give americans comfort. wet can't forget iran is a regime with a history of sponsoring terrorism against americans and our allies. and which continues to threaten the existence of israel. this agreement changes the united states policy toward iran but does very little, if

anything, to change iran's aggressive nature. iranian leaders have already renewed their threats to israel and continue to call the united states the great satan and have rejected the administration's hope publicly that the agreement will lead to better cooperation with iran. so where are we? the united states senate passed legislation 98-1 saying that congress should have a right to vote on this agreement. twice already in these senate chambers within the last week we have tried to bring that legislation up only to face a filibuster that has stopped us from even being able to vote on the agreement. 98 senators voted to let congress have a right to vote on this agreement. 42 of them voted twice now in the last week to refuse to let us bring the agreement before the senate to vote on it.

and so today we are facing yet another effort. today the issue before the senate is a provision that would say that the agreement cannot go into effect until iran recognizes israel's right to exist and until iran frees the four political prisoners whom i identified. once again we are facing a threat of a filibuster. mr. president, as i've indicated, this agreement is dangerous. it's dangerous to the security interests of the united states. it's dangerous to the security interests of the world. it's destabilizing in the middle east and it contains very, very serious potential consequences for the future security of all americans and, frankly, of people throughout the world. this is a critical time. this is a monumentally important decision and i encourage all of

my colleagues to let us simply bring the agreement forward for a vote. a critical issue such as this should not be stopped from even being brought forward for a vote in the united states senate. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleague for his speech. i will be echoing a lot of the same points that he has made and i think that it is a critical time, this is important. it's important for the young people around this country to know what kind of future they're going to have. and i think he's lined it out very well and i think -- this week i think will be critically important in terms of the decisions that we make as a country. in may, the senate passed the

iran nuclear agreement review act by a vote of 98-1. we don't see too many 98-1 votes in this chamber. 66 senators cosponsored this legislation. the principal reason for this overwhelming bipartisan support was the desire to give congress the voice of the people, the opportunity to weigh in on the president's agreement with iran. we've been working together now for four months across the aisle to ensure that the opportunity for congress to review this government comes forward. and yet i am severely disappointed, as my colleague expressed, severely disappointed that 42 of our colleagues have now voted twice to deny the senate the ability to take a simple up-or-down vote on this very important resolution. a simple vote to say exactly how you feel, to make sure everybody in the country and in your state knows your opinion and yet 42 of them are blocking that simple

vote. iran's supreme leaders even said earlier this month that he expects iran's parliament to vote on whether their country will approve the nuclear agreement. at the very least, we should have that up-or-down vote. certainly this government -- this agreement is also worthy of this vote. our constituents expect us to vote on this matter. multiple national surveys have shown that the iran nuclear agreement is opposed by either a plurality or a majority of the american people and any support that this agreement had is beginning -- if you look at the national polling is disintegrating. a recent poll in my state showed that opponents of this deal outnumber supporters by a margin of 3-1 and yet i'm not going to have the opportunity to vote my vote of disapproval of this agreement because of the obstructionism of the other side. in fact, when president obama said that there was strong support for this deal among

lawmakers and citizens, "the washington post" fact checker awarded him three pin observing joes. well, we all know what pinocchio was famous for and that's the growing nose when he wasn't quite telling the truth. there'll pinocchios. that's a lot of skepticism about the president's statements. there's bipartisan opposition to the iran nuclear agreement in congress but only partisan and tepid support. our colleagues in the house of representatives voted last week on a resolution approving this agreement. that resolution received only 162 votes. all from the democrat party. there were -- there was opposition by 260 house members, including 25 democrats. here in the senate, four democrats joined with republicans to support moving forward on an up-and-down vote on this resolution of disagreement -- disapproval. it's important to recognize the depth of bipartisan opposition to the president's agreement with iran.

many of the democrats who have been opposing this deal have tremendous experience in foreign policy matters. in the house of representatives, the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee, the ranking democrat member of the appropriations committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee on middle east and northern africa all voted against approving this agreement. here in the senate, the former chairman of the foreign relations committee and the committee's current ranking member are among the democrats who have opposed this agreement. they have joined republicans on the floor in seeking an up-or-down vote on this -- on this agreement. the senior democrat foreign policy leaders and every republican in both chambers of congress oppose this deal and we have made our reasons clear. the president's agreement fails to make america safer, quite simply. it is not likely to eliminate and it will not eliminate iran's path to a nuclear weapon and the agreement will hurt the security situation that is rapidly deteriorating in the middle east

, especially in israel. we still have not seen the side agreements. there's two side agreements between the iaea and iran. we don't know what's in them. we're supposed to see everything. these side agreements we think include important provisions about the inspection of iranian nuclear sites. we already know -- we already know that iran will have the ability to delay inspections and that access to other sites for more than three weeks. we were supposed to get any time/anywhere inspections. this benchmark severely falls short of that. the combination of the cash from sanctions relief, we hear anywhere from $50 billion to $150 billion so like my colleague i'll go right in the middle and say $100 billion. in five years, the end of the international restrictions on the ballistic missile program will strengthen iran's ability

to cost trouble in the middle east and around the world. think about it. i think about this. the country of iran with another $100 billion. they've already under sanctions -- under the sanctions that have been imposed, they've already expressed concern about the health and welfare of their people and yet even under that sanction domain, they've still are fomenting terror around the middle east. what are they going to do with a hundred billion dollars? i think it's pretty clear what their intentions would be. international sanctions that have helped bring iran to the negotiating table will be difficult to snap back into place in the event of a violation of the agreement. nothing snaps anywhere quickly here in washington, d.c., and sanctions can't snap back. that defies reason. this will lessen our leverage to ensure iran's compliance. despite these serious flaws, it appears based on the two failed cloture votes that the senate has taken this for, that a partisan majority is prepared to thwart the bipartisan majority and move forward with the agreement.

leader mcconnell has filed an amendment that would block sanctions relief until israel both recognizes israel's right to exist and releases american political prisoners. while that amendment will not cure the flaws of the iran agreement, it does represent commonsense policy that should receive overwhelming support. regardless of their views on the substance of the nuclear agreement, i think most americans would agree that before we provide tens of billions of sanctions relief to iran, that the iranian government should have to recognize israel's right to exist and should release our four american political prisoners. just last week, as the senate was debating the nuclear agreement, iran's supreme leader posted on twitter his very -- his very view that israel would not exist in 25 years. that underscores again what a serious threat iran is to our

most important u.s. ally and that is israel. even proponents of the nuclear agreement have recognized that israel's likely to use some of the funds that they receive from sanctions relief to strengthen their military and continue to finance terrorism. if this windfall is going to be provided to iran, then ensuring iran recognizes israel's right to exist is the least we can ask equally important is the securing of the release of our four american political prisoners held by iran. i get this question at home all the time. why was this not part of the bargaining? why were we not asking for the release of our americans before we went forward? and, frankly, i don't think the administration's answered that question. i don't have the answer to that question. and tomorrow we're going to have a -- we're going to have the opportunity to express our wishes. we should not provide valuable sanctions relief to iran without bringing our citizens home. the senate will have the opportunity to decide whether to move forward with the mcconnell amendment tomorrow.

those who have prevented a vote on the merits of the nuclear agreement have it in their power to block a vote on the mcconnell amendment. but let's be clear what that would mean. if a minority of the senate blocks a vote on the mcconnell amendment, then they will allow the president to provide sanctions relief to iran without securing israel's right to exist and without the release of our americans. i believe that the president's agreement with iran should be rejected by the senate and we're going to have another opportunity to vote on cloture to allow the senate to take a true up-or-down vote on that agreement. but even my colleagues who support the nuclear agreement should vote to protect israel and bring our americans home before providing that sanctions relief? i hope my colleagues will reexamine their positions on cloture and allow the senate to do what we were sent here to do do -- that's to take the tough votes. to let people know how we feel. to show our commitment and our passion. and to have our voices and their

voices be heard. with that, i yield the floor. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i am always more than a little awed and inspired to be here on the floor of the united states senate, a place that my father never could have predicted that i would be when he came here in 1935 an immigrant fleeing persecution in germany, 17 years old, not much more than the shirt on his back, speaking no english and knowing virtually no one. and this country gave him a

chance to succeed. this great country opened its arms to him, much as the statue of liberty did, where he entered this country through ellis island. we are a nation of immigrants and of refugees. it has given us strength, our diversity is part of what makes america the greatest, strongest country in the history of the world. sadly, the kind of displacement that caused him to come to this country is far from unprecedented. this country has opened its arms again and again and again, generation after generation, to provide for refugees displaced by war and oppression. inhumane dictators, territorial disputes, environmental degradation all are contributing

now more than ever to the largest refugee crisis since world war ii. we are going through a humanitarian crisis in this country. part of it's due to the brutality and inhumanity of the assad regime in syria, the horrors unleashed by isil in syria and iraq, neighboring countries, have been overwhelmed by fleeing refugees. during my middle east trip of july 2013 with senator mccain and others, i visited a refugee camp in jordan that houses many of these refugees, and since my visit, the situation has only worsened -- significantly so. syria alone has produced an estimated 4 million registered refugees. those individuals are the ones

counted -- in addition to the 7.6 million internally displaced people. turkey bears the brunt of this refugee crisis, housing nearly 2 million of them. lebanon, over 1.1 million refugees. jordan has taken 600,000 or more. and egypt recently exceeded the 130,000 mark. these numbers are abstract. for every one of them, there is a human voice and a face. many are children barely able to comprehend the fate that has befallen them. and this year alone germany is expecting 800,000 asylum seekers, a marked increase from 226,000 in 2014 and 431,000 in

2013. again, these numbers have an impact on those countries, on their population. we met this morning with the ambassadors of the european countries to hear about that impact on them and about their plans to do even more. the atlantic ocean separates us from this crisis physically, but morally we have no separation at all. and the destabilizing effect of that massive displacement ultimately affects us as well, our national security and the stability of regions where we have a vital economic stake and a moral obligation. i strongly support a policy of american generosity and humanitarian relief toward those

refugees seeking to escape the intenible conditions in sear wh- in syria and iraq. exactly what steps this nation should take will be a matter of debate, but clearly we have obligation -- moral obligation and self-interested obligations, economic obligations to the men and women and children who have walked hundreds of miles in search of safety and security and to the countries currently searching for ways to accommodate them. our obligation is multifaceted. first, we have provided $4 billion in aid, which is real money, to countries where those refugees now live temporarily in camps. but humanitarian aid is desperately needed in greater amounts and rising magnitude in countries where refugees are

flowing fast. regional countries including jordan and turkey as well as the european union must be able to provide refugee camps that provide basic necessities for people to live, with aadequate food, water, shelter, clothing, education, and other elements of a safe and stable life to adults but to children who can be seen running, laughing, playing in these camps in the most rudimentary of conditions. the united states must show international leadership as well in ensuring the availability of resources from other nations that frankly have failed to meet the test of moral and political obligation. saudi arabia is one, the gulf

states are others. our allies in this region must fulfill their obligation to do more and to do their part in assisting those fleeing war and bringing about a diplomatic resolution to the crisis. the absence of these nations from this challenge is reprehensible and regrettable. ultimately, syria must seek and achieve a resolution internally. but, in the meantime, it's neighbors have an obligation to do more. i applaud the president's announcement that the united states will resettle approximately 10,000 syrian refugees within our borders next year. as my colleague from illinois, senator durbin, has said, this step is certainly in the right direction.

but increasing the number of refugees coming here is an insufficient response alone. if we fail to provide the expanded capacity and services that are necessary to effectively resettle and bring to this country refugees fleeing their homeland. our focus should be on devising an effective program so that candidates for resettlement can have that hope fulfilled without waiting years for assistance. and now, under the present system, they are waiting years. in particular, mr. president, i want to cite a group of refugees that merits the special conscience and conviction of this nation. they are the refugees, mostly women and young girls, who are

victims of what "the new york times," in an extraordinary report, has called enshrining the theology of rape. these girls and women have beenen slaved -- have been enslaved. they are members of thia sid dii community. approximately 5,000 have been abducted by isil and 2,700 remain in captivity. these reports, which are shocking and horrifying, challenge our conscience to do more. nobody reading them can think of our daughters.

the women in our family without revulsion and shock. at the end of this week, several of my colleagues and i will be sending a letter to secretary of state john kerry urging him to take further action to help the yasidis, the christians, and other religious minorities who have been systematically kidnapped, enslaved, tortured, raped, and brutalized by isil simply because of their faith. we talk a great deal on the floor here and in this body and in this building and in this country about faith. the horror of this persecution calls to our conscience, and i am calling on the state department to declare religious minorities as protected priority

groups able to seek refugee assistance within iraq's borders. as of now, the only iraqis allowed to leave the country with assistance in this way are the people who have been affiliated with the united states government during the war. that category should be expanded to include these refugees. second, i am calling on secretary kerry to improve the inconcrete processing for refugee claims in iraq; specifically, the time required for that processing, the estimated time for iraqis who serve alongside united states military personnel is at the unacceptedly high rate of five to eight years. this issue has been brought to me by numerous of our veterans,

iraqi and afghanistan veterans who owe their lives in some cases to the service of these iraqi and afghanistan colleagues. and yet they wait there five to ten years simply to be processed to come here. we must assure timely access to refugee assistance for both iraqis affiliated with the united states government and iraqis within persecuted religious minorities like the yasitis and christians. and there is mounting, irrefutable evidence of that persecution on a scale that sometimes defies imagination and comprehension. there are many ways the state department can accelerate processing times. double the number from ten to 20

of in-country state department personnel processing iraqi refugees, scwult with the department of homeland security on the use of video interviews consistent with security requirements to be conducted in addition to the in-person interviews currently required; identify a nongovernmental organization to work with the united states embassy to identify and screen religious minorities seeking refugee assistance in irbil, and establish a facility in irbil where the united states government can conduct refugee processing. these steps are not particularly complicated or ingenius. they're common sense. the united states has a proud moral tradition and heritage of aiding refugees. that tradition and hair tanl are

epitomized by the sto statue of liberty and by ellis island. the nation has not always lived up to the high standards that have been set by us for it. we are still very much a work in progress, and there are times in our history when we have failed the high test of morality. but the statue of liberty stands tall at our harbor and embodies what is best about our nation. we are a nation of immigrants truly because we welcome the tired and the hungry yearning to be free. we need to demonstrate the

international leadership that has made us proud in the past to establish a new inclusive vision for syria, to abate this refugee crisis, to provide a path for them to come to here and to provide them, consistent with our security, the opportunities that our feacialtion and mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers going back in history -- all of us have come here from somewhere else, or almost all of us -- and human and effective policies to help us keep alive that great tradition and heritage serving millions of people who are tired and weary and yearning to be free and see that lamp beside

the golden door. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, student debt is a big and growing concern for millions of american graduates. as we look at ways of addressing this problem, it is important to keep in mind that about 90% of that debt is owed to the federal government. the federal government yentsly holds more than -- currently holds more than $1 trillion of student loan debt. that makes the u.s. department of education one of the country's largest lenders. as such, any solution to the debt problem needs to examine the federal government's lending practices. federal banking regulations require commercial lenders to confirm a borrower's ability to repay the loan.

federal student loans are given out without a credit check or any analysis of the current's ability to row pay the loan -- to repay the loan in the future. this is intentional, since many prospective college students have no credit and little or no income. but it is also all the burden -- it puts all the burden on student borrowers to make sure that they don't borrow more than they need. as a nation, we have accepted that it makes moral and financial sense to assist low-income americans in assessing higher education opportunities. but we do that -- and we do that to the tune of billions of dollars through pell grants, subsidized student loans and

other student aid programs. however, while need-based federal student aid is vital to help students who could not otherwise afford to attend college, students are able to borrow well in excess of their financial need and potentially in excess of what they will be able to repay. so something needs to be done about this. college financial aid officers are required under law to issue a federal loans up to the full amount for which the student is eligible, even if a financial aid administrator knows a student is borrowing more than the student needs and will likely have trouble repaying. now think about that. even if the financial aid administrator knows the student plans to put the funds towards

an engagement ring or a sports car, federal rules say they must issue the loan. if a bank followed the same rules as the federal government follows for student aid, it would be accused of predatory lending. there have been lots of suggestions about how to address the student debt issue, but if you don't tackle the root of the problem, it's like closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. so, a good place to start is looking at how our current federal student lending practices may be helping to fuel the student debt problem. example: about 60% of the students at the university of iowa graduate with debt, and their average debt is about

$25,000. however, the university estimates that of that $25,000 figure, about $13,000, or 60% of the debt is debt that was incurred to pay for tuition, room and board, books and the remainder is for what can be called lifestyle expenses. in other words, about 40% of the average student debt taken out by the university of iowa students goes towards lifestyle-enhancing extras. the senate health, education, labor and pension committee will be looking at a number of reforms to the student loan program as it drafts legislation to reauthorize and reform the higher education act. i know that our esteemed

chairman alexander has in the past proposed giving higher education institutions additional tools to reduce unnecessary student borrowing. i have worked with senator franken of minnesota on some measures to provide more information about college costs when students are selecting a college in the very first place, which will hopefully encourage more price competition to combat rising tuition. there is room for a lot of innovation in higher education, and i don't pretend to have all the answers and solutions to the problem of college costs and student debt. what i am proposing is some very simple, very commonsense first steps to empower students with the information they need to make sound financial decisions.

the higher education act already contains a requirement for colleges to provide counseling to new borrowers of federal student loans. however, the current disclosures in the law do not do enough to encourage students to understand the scope and impact of the debt that they will face when they graduate. so i'm here on the floor to introduce legislation. i have entitled this bill know before you owe federal student loan act. this bill strengthens the current student loan counseling requirement by making the counseling an annual requirement before new loans are dispersed rather than just for first-time borrowers. my bill then adds several key

components to the information institutions of higher education are required to -- are required to share with students as part of that loan counseling. under my bill, colleges would have to provide an estimate of the student' projected loan debt-to-income ratio at the time of their graduation. this would be based on the starting wages for that student's program of study and the estimated total student loan debt the student will likely take out to complete the program. that way students will have a picture, a real picture of the student loan payment they will face and whether they will be able to afford those payments with their likely future income from whatever program they

majored in. we often hear the statistics show that on average a college degree results in higher earnings over a lifetime. however, not all college degrees have the same earning potential, and many students are in for a very rude awakening when they graduate and find that what they are able to earn with their degree does not match the level of their debt. students deserve to have this information when they're deciding how much to borrow, not after they graduate with unmanageable debt. this legislation that i'm proposing will also ensure that students are counseled to borrow only the minimum amount necessary to cover expenses and informed that they do not have to accept the full amount of the loan offered. students will also be given

options for reducing borrower through scholarships, reduced expenses, work study or other work opportunities. also, not graduating on time can significantly increase student loan debt, so students will be counseled then on the impact of adding an additional year of study to the total indebtedness and how they can stay on track to graduate on time. crucially, the bill also requires that a student manually enter either in writing or through electronic means the exact dollar amount of the federal direct loan funding that the student desires to borrow. the current process almost makes borrowing the maximum the default option. if you want to borrow less than is offered, you have to ask for less.

because the amount of the federal student loans, a student is eligible to borrow is not limited by the calculation of the financial need or ability to repay. it is important that the student make a conscious, informed decision about how much to borrow rather than simply accepting the total amount of the federal student loan for which the law allows them to borrow. many schools already make a concerted effort to counsel students against overborrowing, and such efforts are showing signs of success right in my own state of iowa. my alma mater, the university of northern iowa, created a program five years ago with the theme -- and i quote -- "live like a student." the program includes workshops and coshes designed to

educate -- and courses designed to educate students on the importance of living within their means while they're in school so they need not live like a student later in life. as a result, the university has lowered average student debt from more than $26,000 down to $23,163. grand view university, also in my state, has a financial empowerment plan where students and families construct a comprehensive four-year financing plan. under this plan, borrowing is based on the student's future earning potential in the student's field of study. the four-year plan also helps ensure students graduate on time and tuition increases are kept at 2% a year over sthoas four

years -- over those four years. iowa student loan, my state's based nonprofit lender, also has a program called the student loan game plan, which is an online interactive resource that calculates a student's likely debt-to-income ratio. it walks students through how their borrowing will affect their lifestyle in the future and what actions they can take now to reduce their power. so, as a result, in the last year, 18.2% of the students who participated decreased the amount that they had planned to borrow by an average of $3,680, saving students $2.1 million in additional loan debt. my legislation would also require that students receive

regular statements about their loan while they're in school, just like they will when they graduate and start repaying. with just about any other kind of loan that you can think of, borrow, start, receiving statements right away and are expected to make payments. with federal student loans, payments are not required until a period of time after graduation, and no statements are sent out until that time. so, then, students forget about their amount of debt that they're accruing until they graduate and get their first bill. what's more, many federal student loans still accrue interest while the student is in school which will be added to the loan, total loan when they start repaying. that means that not only do students forget about how much

debt they have while in school, making them less conscientious about living like a student, but their loan may actually be growing while they're in school. students have the option to pay that interest while they're in school so that it isn't capitalized into their loan. however, few students take advantage of this option. the regular statement that my bill calls for would encourage this practice so students get used to paying some amount towards their loans even before they graduate. this will also make students more aware of their borrowing and less likely to overborrow each time that they take out a new loan. a college education generally remains a good investment. however, when students' academic

dreams become a nightmare, a nightmare upon graduation because they borrow more from the federal government than they can afford to repay with the degree they earned, they understandably feel that something is very wrong. the federal government, as the lender making these loans, has a responsibility to at least ensure that students know where they are getting themselves -- what they're getting themselves into before they get in over their heads. my legislation is intended to deal with that issue. i urge my colleagues to support this bill to prevent more students from drowning in federal student loan debt, and i will introduce that bill at this particular time. i yield the floor, mr. president. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: