completion and a skilled work force. these are goals upon which all of us can agree." end quote. mr. president, one month ago, our colleagues in the house of representatives, a body rarely called a place of agreement, took up and passed a measure that would extend this student loan program for one year. and i previously called up that bill here in the senate and asked unanimous consent that we extend the federal perkins loan program. and while i look forward to a broader conversation about improving federal supporters for students as we look to reauthorize the higher education act, i didn't

believe, and i still don't, that we can sit idly by while america's students are left with such uncertainty. now, as you just heard, i asked unanimous consent and one senator stood up on behalf of republican leadership and blocked our ability at this point in time to extend the federal perkins loan program by one year. again, i understand a desire and, frankly, share a desire to have a broader conversation about federal student aid as part of the higher education act reauthorization effort. i still do not think it is right or fair to let this program expire to the detriment of thousands of students in need. frankly, this is a perfect

example of why the american people are so upset with washington. since 1958, the federal perkins loan program has been successfully helping americans access affordable higher education with low-interest loans for students who cannot borrow or afford more expensive private student loans. in wisconsin, the program provides more than 20,000 low-income university and college students with more than $41 million in aid. but, mr. president, the impacts of this program aren't just isolated to the badger state. in fact, the federal perkins loan program aids over half a million students with financial need each year across 1,500 institutions of higher learning. the schools themselves originate

and service and collect the fixed-interest loans -- loan rates. and what's more, institutions maintain loans available for future students because these are revolving funds. since the program's creation, institutions have invested millions of dollars in their own funds into the program. and mad to making higher -- and in addition to making higher education accessible for low-income students, the program serves as an incentive for people who wish to go into public service by offering targeted loan cancellations for specific professions in areas of high need, such as teaching and nursing and law enforcement. as a member of the senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee and as a united states senator

representing a state with such a rich history of higher educati education, it is among my highest priorities to fight to ensure that the federal perkins loan program continues for generations to come. but unfortunately, as you saw, one single senator stood up again today and said "no." "no" to students across america who ask for nothing more than an opportunity to pursue their dreams. students like andrew. andrew is currently a student at the university of wisconsin, stevens point. without the support of his perkins student loan, andrew said he would not have had the means to attend college with little to no income at his disposal. today, not only is andrew making

the dean's list every semester, but he also has his sights set on attending law school, also at the university of wisconsin. andrew said -- quote -- "without the assistance i get from the perkins loan, i would be forced to either take out other high-interest loans or delay my graduation date or drop out, which is the last thing i want to do." mr. president, today this body also stood up and once again said "no" to students. students like naelli spar. naelli was raised by a single mother. she was an immigrant and worked two full-time jobs.

naelli attended 10 different schools in three different states before she finished high school. without the federal perkins loan program, naelli said that her opportunity to get a college education would have been -- quote -- "an illusory dream." today naelli is the first in her family to finish college and is now in her last year of medical school and is planning to work with those who are underserved in our urban communities. she finished by telling me -- and i quote -- "the perkins loan program helped me reach this point and its existence is essential to provide that opportunity for other young adults wanting to believe in themselves and empower their communities to be better. please save it."

mr. president, you don't have to look very far to find the dramatic impact that this investment has on america's students. there are thousands of stories like the ones that i just shared representing thousands of students who are still benefiting from the opportunities provided to them by this hugely successful program. i am disappointed and frustrated that our bipartisan effort in this united states senate has again been obstructed. i will continue to fight to extend support for america's students in the form of extending the federal perkins loan program so that we can find a way to show the half million

american students who rely on this loan program that we're standing with them and that we're committed to helping them build a stronger future for themselves and our country. i thank you, mr. president, and would yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: mr. president, thank you, and i join my colleague from wisconsin and other members who are here on the floor to talk about the perkins loan program. it is a really important program. it serves the needs of many of the students in our states. mr. portman: and it serves a unique need. it provides flexibility that other programs don't provide. it also allows the colleges and universities to actually contribute to it. so i would hope that we could get this one-year extension done. i would hope that the objection would -- would be overridden by the common sense of doing something that the house has already done. and, by the way, the house of representatives did it for one year also at no cost to the federal government.

because there is no reason to pay for a one-year extension of a program that's a loan program where the colleges and universities take the payments that are made, the repayments, and put it back in through the program. so this is without cost and it's certainly an important program that we ought to continue. i know there's discussion about broader education reform. i support that. i know this program is not perfect. there are other ways that we could possibly improve it. i'm perfectly willing to enter into that discussion and debate. we should have it. we should debate how to make sure college is more afford believe -- affordable for all students. but let's not stop this program that is working, that is providing for my people in my state and people around the country, what they need to be able to afford a quality education. i was out here a few weeks ago talking about the program and at that time i talked about some specific schools and people in my state who depend on this. it's the oldest federal program out there for students to be able to take advantage of some kind of help to be able to get through school. and, boy, it's needed now more

than ever, with tuition costs going up and more and more families feeling that squeeze. when i'm back home, i hear from the parents, i hear from the students themselves it's tough. wages are flat. in many cases, declining. and yet expenses are up. and this is one of them. on top of health care, on top of electricity bills going up. so this is a time for us not to stop the program but for us to continue this really important program and at the same time engage in the important debate we have on how do we reform higher education more generally to be able to h ensure that everybody has access to affordable education. the program since 1958 has provided more than $28 billion in loans. it's a program that now supports 60 different schools in my state. so in the buckeye state of ohio, we have 60 schools that have loans under this program. last year more than 25,000 ohio students received financial aid through this program. 3,000 young people at kent sta state. over 1,700 students at ohio state, "the" ohio state

university in columbus. one of these students is an outstanding young woman. who name is kerry. she gent to kent state. -- goes to kent state. she's a junior. she interned for me last summer. no talking to kerry about this program, this is something she absolutely needs to be able to stay in school. kerry's a young woman who i have a lot of respect for because she fought the odds. she was in foster care. she went from one foster home to another growing up. and yet she not only fought the odds, she's now in college and excelling in college, doing a great job. but she doesn't have the resources to be able to stay in college without this program. she's also a pell grant recipient but she also needs the perkins loan to be able to stay in school. this is not just about numbers, folks, this is about people. this is about kerry. this is about young people who we want to be able to of the -- to be able to have the opportunity to be able to get the education they need to get ahead because it does provide help for those who are in most need. well beyond ohio, over 1,700

educational institutions participate in this. the house already passed it for one year. it doesn't require a new appropriation. it's a flexible program. so many of our student loan programs, including the pell grant program and so on, are programs that the schools cannot provide any kind of flexibility for. and with many of our families and many of our students, kerry being an example, that flexibility is really important. circumstances change. they may find something that they need a little help to stay in school to finish their academic major. they may find that they need a little bit of help because something that they could not anticipate happened in their families. this program provides that flexibility. and again, the colleges and universities actually contribute to it so it's a matching program where they've got to step up and be counted. so let's not allow these students to fall through the cracks. and let's consider what happens if we do allow that to happen. students who are right now applying for this winter semester, which is 2016, starts in january, or the spring semester, may well find that they are not able to receive the aid that they need. i'm told that students can lose

their eligibility if they change institutions or if they change their majors. so these kids could fall between the cracks even though they have perkins loans now. and then finally, of course, if we don't act pretty soon, then next fall, when you've got up to 150,000 freshman who are going to be looking for a perkins loan, may not be eligible for it. so this is not acceptable. let's be sure that we do everything we can in this place to be sure that college tuition is not a roadblock for low-income students who are trying to get a college degree and to pursue their dreams. let's help them to get ahead instead. let's pass this. it creates certainty for the students who benefit from the loans. it creates certainty for these colleges and universities. it ensures that students who need this funding are not stopped and blocked by these high tuitions. i want to thank my colleagues, senator collins, senator casey, who i see is also on the floor, senator baldwin, senator ayotte, senator murphy, i see senator coons and others here. this is something that is bipartisan. it's something that we can do here in the senate, just as the house has already acted. and let's not block this just as these students could be blocked

from obtaining the educational background they need to be able to succeed in life. let's move forward with this while at the same time continuing our discussion on the need to ensure that higher education is more broadly reformed to allow everybody to have that opportunity to pursue their dreams. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: let me associate my remarks with senator baldwin and senator portman. we're trying to bring this body together on behalf of students, on behalf of over 6,000 students in my state of connecticut. i think senator blumenthal is going to give some remarks as well to add connecticut's list to the debate on the floor. over a thousand students at the university of connecticut. over 700 yale university. 600 at the university of bridgeport. 500 at central connecticut. 400 at eastern connecticut. all across connecticut, students are able to attend college because of the perkins loan program.

and as one of the few members of the senate who is still paying back my student loans, who is also saving as fast as i can for my two boys, who will hopefully go to college, this debate that we're having today strikes me as crazy. we should be having a debate about how we expand access to college. instead, we are simply trying to protect the existing access that we have. in ten years the united states mass gone from the number-one country in the world with respect to the 25-35-year-olds with college degrees to number 12 in the world. in ten years we've gone from first to 12. the answer to that is the cost of college. the colombia free trade agreement is making -- the cost is making it unaffordable to attend and complete school. the perkins program doesn't require any additional expenditure of taxpayer dollars. those 6,000 kids in connecticut will get to continue to attend college with perkins loans with

no additional obligation on behalf of taxpayers. that's as good a deal as you get. no additional expenditure from the federal government and hundreds of thousands of kids all across the country, 6,000 of them in connecticut, get to continue in college. so i simply wanted to come down to the floor today to express my bewilderment that republican leadership is standing in the way of simply preserving the student loan programs that are on the books today, because if you go back home to your district, you are not going to hear a lot of people sympathetic to this argument. they want congress to be talking about how do you make college more affordable, and they would be as bewilderrered as many of of us are that republicans in the senate are trying to make college less affordable when there is absolutely no additional expenditure required in order for us to simple preserve the perkins loan program as it currently exists. let me add one story to the mix. that's the story of amanda, a

senior at the university of hart hartford. her families makes about about $60,000, $70,000 a year. that's just a little bit too much for her to be able to qualify for a pell grant. and so she has to work two different jobs to put money on top of her stafford loans to put money on top of the contribution her parents make, just in order to get to the neighborhood of being able to afford college. but what makes that final difference for amanda is the perkins loan. the only reason she is able to go to the university of hartford is because of the perkins loan, and she is doing everything we ask. her parent parents are putting n money, she taking out loans and she is working two jobs. "i can't imagine how difficult it would have been if federal programs such as the perkins loan had been eliminated as options to me. even now in my senior year, i have no choice but to work two jobs and i'm bear gleeting by. without the perkins and other

financial airksd i truly believe i would have to transfer to a community college where i would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much as i have here at the university of hartford." on behalf of her and the 6,000 other students in connecticut that will lose their perkins loan jiblgh eligibility as longs lasts, i hope we'll come together. mr. coons: i join today to stand in the voices that we've already heard, bipartisan chore us that has stood in support of senator baldwin's request, unanimous consent request blocked by the opposing party, that we move forward with reauthorizing the perkins loan program. the voice that i think is so often missing from the deliberations here in the senate is the voice we just heard brought forward by senator murphy of connecticut, the voifs our constituents, the constituents who connect with us when we're home, the

constituents who reach to t outo by e-mail and letter. apparently, mr. president, our colleagues have failed to hear from thousands, even hundreds of thousands of our home state constituents who rely on federal perkins loans. this program is a critical lifeline for students across the country who would be well on their way to a college degree if it weren't for the skyrocketing, unsustainable costs of higher education. i think congress' failure to reauthorize the perkins loan program is already having a negative impact on students and on households across our country. we can see the real-world impact in our home states if we would but reason to our constituents. let me give two examples of delawareans. frank was counting on the per -n the per canethe perkins loan pr. now that the perkins loans have expired, his family is struggling to figure out how they will pay for his education.

there's also taylor who had signedder up for a promising new course of study because of a perkins loan that would make the additional cost possible without this funding moving forward, future students like taylor will also have to turn to private loans, sometimes less accessible, sometimes less affordable to fill that gap. frank and taylor's stories are just a few examples of many i have received in my office in constituents or in conversations i have had at home in delaware. what i am with working delawareans, there is no topic raised more frequently mongt those of my -- amongst thoafs my age bracket than how they can afford to send their kids to college. just the other night i heard a whole group talking about how can we possibly afford the skyrocketing expenses of higher education? the question we're here today to address isn't the great big question of how can we make college affordable. its just the man simple questiof how can we extend the perkins loan program.

i'm glad to join in calling for a permanent extension of this program. in my state, nearly 2,000 delawareans last year received perkins loans -- 2013-2014. that's 20,000 of my constituents who had the chance to go to college, invest in their education, improve their liberias for the better and that's in -- improve their lives for the better. in the 50 years since per canes was created, the program has awarded 26 million loans across this country. those are big abstract numbers. for my colleagues who remain undecided on whether to support an extension, i urge them to think about the franks, the taylors, their constituents, folks from towns and cities big and smal all across this countru the average loan is just $2,000. it is not even a rounding error in the scope of the total federal budget that we fight over here. but that's an amount that for one student, one family can single-handedly determine whether an aspiring teacher or a business owner or an inventor or someone who wants to go into a

professional career, someone who just wants to advance themselves through education can continue their steady, forward progress. iit is the senate is not init il education investment many of us know would be a huge boost to our country. it is competitiveness and our constituents well-being. it's not a perfect solution to the delawareans i talk with every day who wonder how they can afford college. but it is a start. it is an important start. so, mr. president, colleagues, let's come together and act. even the house of representatives, of all places, has acted on a bipartisan basis to extend the perkins loan programs. we can and should do the same. i want to thank my colleagues for their work on this critical issue and urge this chamber to come together and approve an extension of the federal perkins loan program without delay. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. casey: mr. president, i rise to speak on this loan program, which we've had the luxury, i guess, all these years of relying upon, has allowed us to say that as a country we value higher learning, we value that for no matter what family you're from, what level of income, we believe not only in the context, as i've often said, of early learning when someone is at the beginning of their learning years, but much later when they're in the years of higher education that they can learn more now and earn more later. that linkage, that direct nexus between learning and earning is a substantial factor in whether or not someone can have the kind of job and career and success in their life. but for a lost folks, the cost of -- but for a lot of folks, the cost of college, as so many

have outlined today, becomes an impossible or -- a barrier over which they cannot climb. and especially if they're low-income. so all they're asking for is a fair shot, a fair shot at learning, a fair shot at going to an institution of higher education. and we know that this program has meant so much not only to folks across the country. but when you look state by state and examine the number of students, the number of families that are affected now, it's extraordinary. whether you're talking about the presiding officer's home state of colorado or senator coons and his constituents in delaware or connecticut or wisconsin or ohio, wherever we are, we can see the numbers. in pennsylvania, 40,000 students today are beneficiaries of the perkins loan program. we're told as well that this isn't just a program that affects all different income

levels. this is a program which is designed and has benefited those who are most needy. we're told that a quarter of the recipients are from families with incomes of less than -- less than $30,000. the maximum loan amount per student is $5,500. now, if you're going to a school where it costs $45,000 or $50,000 or $0 $60,000, that migt not seem like a lovment but for a lot of institutions that are not so high in cost, that is a big, big number -- or a fraction of that number is a big number. if you are gage to graduate school, you could get up to $8,000 from the perkins loan program. it is a ten-year repayment period, and as the senator from ohio pointed out rk, it is a revolving fund. so as one student is paying their perkins loan back over ten years, another student is benefiting from that revolving

fund. we've all had individuals in our states -- i have talk add couple of times -- i have talk add couple of times when i was home last week about nikki rizolla. she had a long and difficult pathway through her higher education years. she is a single mom, in school, out of school. when she finally got through scoolt and haschool and had thea perkins loan, she said the following in talking about her own circumstances as a single mom. "i'm proud to be a college grad and my daughter is proud of me, too. i'm so grateful for getting the perkins loan to help me. i know that i wouldn't be where i am right now" -- meaning with a job after graduating from edinboro, and i pick up the quotation from now. "i would not be where i am right now without it and this is a really scary thawvment" so she

is thinking about where she would have been without a perkins loan. where she would have been is highly likely out of school and, therefore, not working. the job she got is with a major company in our state. so that's nikki. i also meninged on the floor a couple of years ago -- i won't repeat it but want to remind people of their nairnlg cayla mcbride. one corner of the state, philadelphia, the opposite corner that nikki went to at edinboro university. but cayla at temple indicates that she received a perkins loan to help with tuition after her mother was laid o then we have another example. someone i met during break right near my home torn. -- near my hom hometown. anthony fanucci, a senior at wilkes bury.

anthony's father works overtime and anthony works every weekend in two jobs eafort summe jobs e. an thoaanthony said, "my strengt me to wilkes university, but without financial funding, your strengths and your resume and what you've done before that mean nothing. i never, ever seek pity for my financial situation because my financial situation is far from rare." he's talking about so many students out there who face a fork in the road at some point. if they have perkins, they can likely stay in school. if they don't have perkins, many of them, far too many, will not be able to continue their higher education. now, we know the program expired

on september 30. and here's what it means for -- here le's the practical implican for students. no new students can receive loans and while current recipients are "grandfathered for five years," there's uncertainty because we've never been in this circumstance where there's -- the program expired and we don't know exactly what will happen with regard to the implementation of any kind of new changes or new policy by the administration. it's important to note that some will not be benefiting from the grandfathering provision. a student would not be grandfathered if they do one of the following: if they change their major, if they alter their course of study, or if they transfer. now, one of the -- and i should also mention, the cutoff for the grandfathering was june 30 of this year. let's just consider one of those circumstances.

if they change their major, we're told by a recent study in our state that 75% of students will change their major at some point in their years in college. let's say this. 50% or frankly 33%, whatever the number is, that's a lot of students changing their major and thereby maybe taking themselves out of the protection of that grandfathering provision for perkins loan, now that we're in the period after it has expired. financial aid officials who have written to us talk about other circumstances. i won't read a full better, but in one -- one letter we got from a financial aid official -- quote -- they talked about -- quote -- significant changes in family -- a family's financial circumstances -- unquote -- and -- quote -- unaccepted -- or i should say unexpected financial

difficulties, unquote. so that's the real world of real students and real families, without perkins. or at least with the uncertainty with regard to perkins. neither, in my judgment, is acceptable. not having an extension, a one-year extension of the perkins loan program makes no sense to me, and i think a lot of students. if we had an extension, we could debate that come would want to make changes or debate the elements of the program, but having an expire makes no sense, but even if -- even if the expiration isn't -- doesn't definitively impact you, the uncertainty about that should not be part of a college student's experience. they should at least have the certainty to know while they're studying, while they're getting through their course work especially as freshmen, they should have the certainty or at least the expectation that it would continue to help them. so i think in summary, we

should, number one, continue to work together on a bipartisan fashion to solve this problem. the good news here is that despite the partisan rancor and divisions in washington and the senate and the house, on this we have broad bipartisan support. something on the order of 28 cosponsors. at the last count, six are republicans, so we've got folks in both parties working on this. and we all believe, i think, that we have an obligation to do everything we can to support higher education. no student should have to drop out of college because congress has not done its job. and we have more work to do on this, and i would urge those who have concerns about it or want to have another point of view be debated here, i hope we could -- we could work together to get through this impasse and get the perkins loan at least extended for one more year as was done in

the house most recently by voice vote. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, this discussion by very good senators -- and i congratulate the senator from pennsylvania and the other senators who have spoken. the senator from pennsylvania and wisconsin are both on our education committee. we've worked well together and will continue to discuss this, but this shows how difficult it is to do what most americans say they like to see, which is to simplify, deregulate and make it easier for students to go to college. that's what we're trying to do here in the senate. almost every witness who came before us said this -- it's too complicated to fill out a form for the current form of student aid, so simplify it. and the witnesses said have one undergraduate student loan, have one loan for graduate students

and have one loan for parents. right now, students might have three. they might have different loans with different interest rates and different expiration dates. the application process is so complicated, it turns away millions, we have been told, of students who are just frustrated by that, and the repayment program which is very generous, not for the perkins loan which i'll get to in a minute, but for all other direct loans, very generous, it's so complicated that students don't take advantage of it. we're toward the end of our work in the senate education committee to take our giant student loan program, which loans more than $100 billion of taxpayer dollars a year which has more than a trillion dollars of outstanding loans and simplify it and make it easier and cheaper for students to go to college. one way to do that is to replace the perkins loan with a direct loan that has a lower interest rate and a more generous repayment plan. let me say that again. what we're proposing to do is to

replace the perkins loan with a direct loan that's available to every single student who's enrolled in an eligible, accredited college. you show up, you enroll, you get the loan. that's available to you. the interest rate is 4.29% today. that's lower than your perkins loan. and when you pay it back, if you get the direct loan, you may pay it back like a mortgage over ten years or you may pay it back over 20 years, 15 or 20 years. not paying more than 10% or 15% of your disposable income. and if you haven't paid it back after 20 years, it's forgiven. that's what the fathers have said to the students. so that lower interest rate and that generous repayment program is not a part of the perkins loan program, and what we are saying, a bipartisan group of senators are saying, is that we need to replace the perkins loan with that better opportunity.

now, let's be clear about who's affected by this. perkins loans are about 1% of all the student loans, so 99% of those students who have student loans are not affected by this discussion. of those who have perkins loans, you can keep your perkins loan. you can keep your perkins loan and the department of education notified all the institutions early in this calendar year and said the perkins loan expires in the fall. if you grant a new perkins loan, it will be a one-year loan. for everybody else who has already got a perkins loan, you can keep it through the end of your program. so in almost every case, you've either got a one-year loan if you have got a new loan for the first time, or if you're already in the program, you keep it all the way through to the end of your program. that's the situation. so it's important for students to know that the bipartisan effort here is to simplify the

student loan program and give them a lower interest rate and a better repayment program. now, why would you not want that? why would you not want that instead of this? you might say well, we'd like to have both. well, sure we would like to have both, but the congressional budget office says that it will cost $5 billion over ten years to -- to continue the perkins loan program. the testimony we had and our recommendation by that bipartisan group of senators is we have got a better use for that $5 billion. we might have a higher amount of money that you could borrow. we know there are going to be more plants -- pell grants granted if we simplify the application and the repayment process. and we would like, we would like to give students the opportunity to use their pell grants year round. some way we've got to pay for that, and one way to pay for that is to simplify the system. if we take $5 million out of

that to continue the perkins loan program so we can give students a higher interest rate and a worse repayment program, we're also taking money away from the new pell grants, from the possibility of a year round pell grant and from the other reforms that we'd like to make. so why should we be trying to change this now? when -- when the department has notified all the institutions that this is how things are going to be. we're toward the end of the work in our committee. we're working in a very good bipartisan way. we haven't agreed on everything, we don't expect to, but we're able to produce a bill with the elementary and secondary education act, senator murray and i. we expect to be able to do that with the higher education act. the senators will have a chance to offer amendments on the floor -- in the committee and on the floor, and if the full senate decides it wants to keep the perkins loan program and take $5 billion out of the fund to give year round pell grants to students or the extra pell

grants that we would be able to grant and instead of doing that wants to continue a program with a higher interest rate and a worse repayment program, why the full senate can do that. i won't recommend it and i won't vote for it. but that's the purpose -- that's the purpose here. it's important for everyone considering this to know that president bush recommended that the program end. president obama recommended that the program be changed and folded in in effect with the regular direct loan program. the federal government hasn't contributed any new money to the perkins loan program since 2004 because most people know that it's not as good a loan opportunity for almost all students, it's not as fair a use of the money as is the direct loan program. i prefer a private loan program, but the congress has decided it's a federal loan program. just to re-emphasize, if you're enrolled in any accredited institution -- and we have 6,000

of them -- all you've got to do is show up and you're eligible for the loan. and we think you're better off and you're less likely to overborrow and you're more likely to go to college if it's a simpler program, if you have a single undergraduate loan and a single graduate loan and a single loan for parents. so that's the purpose behind my point of view on this. i'd like for our committee to finish our work. hopefully we could do that and give it to senator mcconnell, let him put it on the floor earlier in the year and the senator can decide which loan program we want. we have to continue the mumbo jumbo of student loans we have today which discourages students from going to college, taking advantage of repayment programs and discourages the kind of education that most of us want, well, the senate can do that, but i'll be arguing against that. so that's why i ask the senator from arizona to object today to bringing immediately to the floor this continuation of a

program that every institution in the country knew was supposed to end when it ended, and that one president has tried to end and another president has tried to change and almost every witness that came before our committee -- not everyone, but almost everyone said students will be better off, students are the ones we care about as long as we're fair to taxpayers, students will be better off if we simplify the system and have a freedom undergraduate loan, a single graduate loan and a single loan for parents. of course in addition to that, there is a federal grant system, and if you're in colorado or tennessee or connecticut or pennsylvania and you want two years of college, for those who are eligible for the pell grant, which you do not have to pay back, the two years of college is basically free because the average tuition for a two-year community college is about $3,300 a year and the average pell grant is about $3,300 a year. so we're offering the students

of this country -- it's never easy to pay for college, but the taxpayers have been pretty generous. i mean, basically we're saying everywhere in the country if you want two years of college and you're in the 40% that are lower income, your two years are basically free. if you need more money, you're entitled to a loan that you can pay back at an interest rate this year of 4.29%. that's a low interest rate for somebody with no credit rating and no collateral. you can't get that anywhere else, but you do get it from the federal government so you can go to college. and we're saying in addition to that that you can pay it back over 15 or 20 years out of your disposable income, and if that's not enough, if you're a teacher or a fireman or someone who has not made as much to pay it back, it's forgiven by the taxpayers. we'd like for perkins loan students to have the lower interest rate and the more

generous repayment program, and that's why i object to circumventing the committee's decisions. let us finish our work. let us make a decision which we should be able to do as a whole senate by early next year, and let the students who already have perkins loans continue all the way through to the end of their program. let the students who got it for the first time since july know that they'll have that program for this one year, which is what every single university in the country was told about earlier this year and reminded of by the department of education in september. let us do this in an orderly way and let's put the students first. so all of us are interested in helping students make it easier and simpler to attend college. i think our bipartisan proposal will replace the perkins loan with a direct loan opportunity with a lower interest rate and a more generous repayment program is a better deal for students

and avoids spending that $5 billion that i would like to use for the year-round pell grant and for the additional pell grants that are going to be created by our simpler student aid program. i thank the president. i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you. i deeply respect the expertise and dedication of my colleague from tennessee and especially understand and i'm grateful for his leadership as chairman of the health, education, labor and pensions committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, and i understand that he is moving toward reform and overhaul of the current system of financial aid and loans that will make it better for students. that's the goal. and that it will be ready perhaps sometime early next year. as we know from our experience

in this body, timelines frequently shift and give way, and so early next year may turn into later next year or the spring of next year or at some point in time. in the meantime, futures are in the balance, the futures of students in "congressional record" and around the -- in connecticut and around the country who are trying to plan in their senior years. their faces and voices are with me and with all of us every day. their futures are the future of this country. the house has extended the perkins loan program for one year. why won't the senate do it? my colleague from tennessee urges that we simplify the program. well, let's simplify decisions that are being made right now at the kitchen tables and the

living rooms of families across the country and make available this option, even as we simplify and reform the program because the failure to do so vastl vasty complicates and confuses the lives of students who are making real-life decisions while we debate. we are, in fact, debating right now a cybersecurity information sharing act, which pertains to the cloud and computing that takes place in the clouds. we're talking here in the clouds compared to real-life decisions being made by students and their families every day. and i'm hearing from them, and i'm hearing from financial aid administrators -- for example,

at quinnipiac university in connecticut who tell me that there is a level of anxiety and angst they haven't seen in recent years because of this body's inaction, its failure to continue a program that has worked and worked well for countless students. in fact, in the 2014-2015 school year, institutions in connecticut dispersed over $20 million through the perkins loan program, using that funding to provide targeted financial aid to support their very neediest students, low-income students who face a gap in funding, who have to make hard decisions about real dollars and cents need this program, not early next year -- right now. and the senate's fai senate's fo

arctic as the housarctic as the, abrogates its responsibility. quinnipiac would have been able to offer these students perkins loans to close the gap between what financial aid they're receiving and what they need to continue their education in previous years. this year they're telling students, sorry, no help available. these students are the future of our country. they're the ones who are going to be doing the computer science that is necessary for our cybersecurity. they are the intellectual infrastructure of this country, and our failure to invest in them and this expiration is only one reflection of that failure to invest, is a failure for the entire country. i received a note from a

sophomore at the university of new haven telling me how she benefited from the perkins loan pravment she's pursuing a double major in marine biology and environmental science and wrote to me saying -- quote -- "i appreciate every day that i spend at the university of new haven, thanks to the aid of the federal perkins loan." and she said, "receiving money from the perkins -- federal perkins loan has allowed me to achieve many of my goals hand z and has opened many doors of opportunity." the doors ever opportunity for nicole in marine biology and environmental science where she can put the science to work and save long island sound and help us to preserve our environment are not only doors of opportunity for her, they're doors of opportunity for our whole country. the failure to extend the perkins loan program closes

those doors. and i met recently with seniors at the university of -- at the new britain high school. at new britain high school, these seniors are thinking about where they're going to school. l they're making life-changing and transformative decisions about their futures based on their financial alternatives. when i asked them how many of you have, in effect, abandoned the school of your first choice because you couldn't afford it and federal aid wasn't available and no scholarships were accessible, about half of them raised their hand. and i thought to myself, well, things often work out for the better, but sometimes not. sometimes futures are

constrained and warped and distorted because a young person with great potential is unlimited to develop it because of an avenue of education blocked by financial unaffordability. my colleagues have stated very powerfully and eloquently -- and it's been a bipartisan debate about what the perkins loan program means to so many students. and i would just close by saying, this program involves an example of real institutional skin in the game. it requires institutional capital contributions, as a requirement for a school's participation. it fills a gap of affordability that affects our very neediest and often most deserving students.

our constituents will rightly ask us, did you reject the student loan program? no, we didn't reject it. did you renew it? no, we suml simply allowed it t. this program has gone into the cloud. we've allowed it to expire when we could extend it for one year without really damaging the reform effort under way. i want to repeat that i respect the chairman of the help committee's intention and goal to reform all student loan programs, but in the meantime the futures of american students are affected unfairl unfairly ad unwisely by thi this inaction by this body. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president,

i thank the senator from connecticut for his eloquent remarks. let me offer this different perspective. you don't need a perkins loan to go to a two-year college to get two years of post graduate education. the average tuition at a community college -- and there are terrific opportunities in my state and in most states -- is about $3,300. and if you're in the 40% -- about 40% of the students qualify for a grant of about on average $3,300. so those two years are free for most students who need the money. those students are also entitled to a direct loan, if they enroll at the community college, usually of $4,000, $5,000, $6,000. you just walk up and you're entitled to it, if they think

they need t you probably don't need a perkins loan to go to most of the state universities. in tennessee, most of the state tuitions are $8,000 or $9er,000. many of the best state universities are state institutions. you're entitled to your pell grant you you are a expwiel ento your direct loan. in tennessee there's the hope scholarship in almost every one of the students at the university of knoxville has one. where the perkins loan has been useful has been at the expensive private clenls. if it is $50,000 to go to a private college, you can get your pell grant, get your direct loan, get a second loan and then you can get a perkins loan. and then you can end up being in the newspaper for having borrowed so much he that people write articles in "the wall street journal" about how we've

create add circumstance where students are overborrowing and pay back their student loans. so i think the lyle is the quesy is, should taxpayers spend money over the years to make it possible for a student to go to a $50,000 a year school or should taxpayers spend that money to create a year-round pell grant and additional pell grants for low-income students who want another two years or four years of education? i think that's the question. and the government is about setting priorities. if we had an unlimited amount of money, we could have everything, except we do have a problem with overborrowing. and complexity. and when you add a third loan on top of two other loans so you can go to a $50,000-a-year tuition college, that's a choice

that america has to make. i'm proud of the fact that we have those choices. but we've -- we have lots of 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds and many graduate students, too, who years later can't pay it back. so i think we're better off with a single undergraduate loarntion a single graduate loan, a single parent loan that's available to every single student, and i think we're better -- and i think we're better off by using whatever savings we have to expand the number of pell grants and to offer a year-round -- a year-round pell grant. and as i said before, every single institution -- all 6,000 of our institutions -- were told by the department of education earlier in 2015, if you grant a perkins loan this year, it will be for one year, because the program ends in the fall.

every college -- and also, they were told that if you already have a perkins loan, absent a few changes that are part of the existing law, you'll be able to keep it all the way through the end of your program time. so this is an honest dins of opinion. i've got a lot of university presidents -- i know a budge of them -- they like the program because it gives them one more tool to use. the question is not just whether they like the program. the question is, what's best for the students? and i think taking the available amount of money we've got and expanding it for -- simplifying the student aid system and making the year-round pell and the other programs available to students who need it the most, i think that's what we should be doing. and we'll finish our work in the senate education committee hopefullying within a few weeks. we'll have it ready to come to the floor, we can debate it and the senator from connecticut and can i continue our discussion. i thank the president.

i yield the floor. mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate not in a quorum call. mr. flake: mr. president, rise to speak in support of the flake amendment 2582 that's currently pending before this body. this amendment is very simple. it simply adds a six-year sunset

to the bill. this amendment also keeps in place the liability protections established by the cybersecurity information sharing act for information that is shared pursuant to the requirements of the bill. furthermore, the amendment ensures that the requirements on how the information is shared under the act is handled remains in effect after the sunset date. that's all this amendment doesment. it simply sunsets the bill in six years and it does so in a reasonable and a responsible way. i believe in sunset provisions. it is good for us to consider our past decisions, six years from now determine whether what we enacted is operating well, and to debate the overall success of the legislation that we passed six years prior. we ought to do that frankly on a lot of other legislation that we pass. i do believe -- and let me say,

i believe that the bill that we're currently can as it is written, strikes the right balance. it puts in place the proper privacy protections, and i plan to support the legislation. however, it's important that we make sure that we're forced to go back and evaluate it in years to come. to make sure that we actually got it right. now, given the nature of the bill being debated before us, it's all the more important to do so in this instance. i will also note that this six-year sunset is similar to sunset provisions that were included in both house-passed cybersecurity bills. it's in the house. we ought to have it in the senate as well. both the cyber protections act which passed the house by a vote of 306-116 and the cybersecurity advancement act which passed the house by a vote of 365-63, both

of these included a seven-year sunset. so i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. i think it does strengthen the bill. it ensures that we re-evaluate as we should any legislation that we pass to ensure that it is having its intended effect, and i yield back. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i rise today in strong support with my democratic colleague,

other floor leader on this bill -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. vitter: excuse me, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. and now i rise in strong support of the frank r. lautenberg chemical safety for the 21st century act. over two years ago, mr. president, i sat down with now the late-senator frank lautenberg of new jersey in an attempt to find compromise and to work together on updating the drastically outdated toxic substance control act. updating this law was a longlime goal and passion of -- wag a longtime goal and passion of frank's. we came at it from real different directions, at light initially. i'm saddened frank isn't here with us today to see it finally being brought up for consideration on the floor of the senate. we worked closely together and forged a significant,

productive, positive, bipartisan compromise. the sort of work we don't see often enough in the u.s. senate or the u.s. congress. but we got it done here and it's a strong, positive compromise in substance as well. now, after frank's passing, senator tom udall stepped in to help preserve frank's legacy and continue working with me to move this reform forward. and we have done that consistently over months and months, working on issue after issue, detail after detail to produce a strong result. i'm very proud of the substance of this result because it achieves two very, very important goals: on the one hand, we certainly protect health and safety and give e.p.a. the proper authorities to do that with regard to chemicals in commerce. on the other hand, we make sure we don't overburden industry and

take -- put them at a disadvantage in terms of remaining world leaders as americans in innovation and chemistry. we are world leaders now. we innovate, we produce new chemicals and new uses and new products on a spec spectacular s and we certainly don't want to threaten that. our frank r. lautenberg chemical safety for the 21st century act doesn't threaten it. it enhances it and it protects health and safety. and that's why i'm so proud of this bipartisan work. now, we've done that work so completely, mr. president, we are now in a position to pass this bill through the senate in very short order. in fact, we only need two hours of floor time, and we need no amendment votes related to the bill in any way. and that's virtually unheard of

in the senate, but it goes to the work that so many folks have done on both sides of the aisle. so two hours of floor time, no amendment votes. we can pass this bill, move it on to the house, and we have been in contact with the house for months, so we are very hopeful that we can follow up with our action with house action and a final result in relatively short order. mr. president, that's why we're coming to the floor today to ask unanimous consent to establish that process in the near future. very simple, very short process so that we can get this done, achieve this result, no amendment votes necessary, whether they're germane, related, unrelated, no amendment votes necessary, and pass it on to the house. and i certainly hope we can have that agreement to move forward in a productive fashion.

with that, mr. president, let me yield to my democratic colleague, senator udall, who's been such a great partner in this effort following flank lautenberg's -- frank lautenberg's unfortunate passing. mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: mr. president, i rise -- and i thank my colleague, senator vitter. it's been a real pleasure working with him on the toxic substances control act, and we -- i think we brought this a long, long way. but i rise first to speak on the pending cybersecurity legislation and then i will be seeking unanimous consent to process another bill. protecting our national security and economic interests from cyber attack is a very important priority. i commend senator burr and senator feinstein for their hard work on their legislation. irknow thei know they have also gone through a lot to get floor time on their bill and are working to process amendments.

it is clear that they have made a serious effort. i respect the chairman and vice-chairman and their staffs for their work. and my understanding is this will pass with a large bipartisan majority in the senate. as chairman burr stated yesterday, the house has already acted on cybersecurity legislation. he is eager to start reconciling differences and getting a bill to the president's desk. that's what good legislators do. as the chairman knows, i have also been working for a number of years on a complicated legislative project working with senator vitter and senator inhofe and many other senators of both parties. we are very, very close to the reform of the totally outdated toxic substances control act. we all know that tsca is broken. it fails to protect families. it fails to provide confidence in consumer products. we have a chance today to change that. and to show that congress can actually get things done.

i'm pleased that chairman burr is a cosponsor of our legislation, along with over half of the united states senate. after years of work, we are now also in a position to seek unanimous passage of tsca reform so that we can go to conference with the u.s. house of representatives. it's been a long road, with lots of productive debate and discussion and cooperation and compromise. this is a balanced bill, one that republicans, democrats, industry, and public health groups can all support moving forward. not everyone loves our senate product, but its staunchest opponents are now ready a how for senate -- alou for senate passage. -- allow for senate passage. we cawehave cleared this legisln the democratic side of the aisle with a short time agreement. my understanding is that there

is nearly unanimous consent -- unanimous sign-off on the republican side as well. so with that, i would join with senators vitter and inhofe in asking for unanimous consent. i ask unanimous consent that at a tile to be determined by -- a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 121, s. 697. further, that only the -- the only amendment in order be a substitute amendment to be offered by senator inhofe. that there be up to two hours of debate equally divided between the leaders or their designees, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on adoption of the amendment, the bill be read a third time, and the senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended. if amended, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection?

mr. burr: reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator is north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, let me say to the two authors, i have deep respect for both of you. and you have done an incredible job with this bill. it's one of the rngs i' rinls aa cosponsor -- it's one of the reasons i'm a cosponsor. it's no surprise to the senate that i have had a deep desire to add the land and water conservation fund reauthorization, which has expired, as an amendment to this bill. i seek no time. i only seek the vehicle for an up-or-down vote and a ride -- a ride that i can't seem to get by itself. as a matter of fact, i think the authors of this bill know that i've said, if somebody can offer me a stand-alone opportunity to debate and vote on the land and

water conservation fund, we can unanimous consent stoss ska. we can't a-- we can unanimous consent toss scavmenconsenttsca. so i would ask the authors to modify their unanimous consent request to include a vote on the burr-ayotte-bennet amendment in relation to the land and water scifertion fund. -- conservation fund. the presiding officer: will the senator so modify his request? mr. burr: i would ask that the consent be modified to include a vote on the burr- ayotte-bennet amendment in relation to the land-water conservation fund. the presiding officer: will the senator so modify his request.

mr. vitter: is ther is there objection to the modification? mr. lee: we have an opportunity to update the land and water conservation fund and to do so in a way that it works more efficiently and helps solve the problems facing our federal estate. to do so, we need to pursue a few goals. first, more money from the lwcf should be sent to the states to implement worthwhile projects. when the lwcf was conceived, 60% of its funding was required to go to the states. that statutory requirement was removed years ago and now just 12% of lwcf's money is given to the states with minimal federal strings attached. next the lwcf should be used as a tool to solve and not to exacerebrate the current federal lands maintenance backlog.

the feeling has undertaken an gobble task in trying manage more than 600 million acres of varyinvarying terrain. evidence of the federal federal government fail tour manage itsings is found in the maintenance bag, although a nawm has grown nearly every single year since president obama has been in office. now, since lwcf was created some 50 years ago, congress has appropriated nearly $17 billion to the fund. 62% of this money has been spent on land acquisition resulting in 5 million acres being added to the federal estate. the and so, mr. president, we should work together to improve the lwcf. let's work together to ensure that north carolina, new hampshire, new mexico, and every other state in this country gets more money. let's work together to make sure that the federal government only acquires such land as it can

adequately manage. and on that basis, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. burr: i object, mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. udall: again, mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico is recognized. mr. udall: again, i respect senator burr but i'm very disappointed in that objection. i take a back seat to no one in supporting the land and water conservation fund. it is extremely popular in new mexico and critical to enabling our outdoors economy. asenator burr has been a strong leader on the lwcf. he has brought much-needed attention and passion to the issue of reauthorization. and i want to work with him on that. but the current strat dwi -- strategy of holding tasca hostage for lwcf is not the proper one. this is the sort of thing that gives the united states senate a

bad reputation for dysfunction and i do not see how it will lead to any progress on lwcf. i have not objected to senate burr's efforts to pass reauthorization in the senate. in fact, i have praised his efforts. i share his frustration that a small minority of republicans has blocked his efforts. but now instead of one bill being blocked, we have two. and without this objection, tosca would pass unanimously after years of hard work. instead of holding tosca hostage, why not consider considering lwcf on senator burr's legislation? and with that, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

10eus #ugs #u quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, in the small business committee, we've been working on significant legislation that goes to disaster recovery, both super storm sandy relief and the disaster loan program improvement act. and we're ready to move that legislation and pass it through the entire united states senate, mr. president. so first, i would ask unanimous consent that my full remarks be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: secondly, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on small business and entrepreneurship be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 208 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2088, an act to -- 208, an act to improve the disaster assistance programs of the small business administration. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask that the -- the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is

discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. vitter: excuse me, mr. president. thank you. and now i ask that the vitter amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i congratulate senator vitter on the passage of this bill and would remark on the support for it by senator booker and senator menendez on our side of the aisle. i now in turn ask unanimous consent that the committee on commerce, science and transportation be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 774, and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 774, an act to strengthen enforcement mechanisms to stop illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and so forth and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i then ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, thank you very much. we've worked long and hard in the bipartisan oceans caucus to clear this illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing enforcement act of 2015. it will help fishermen on all of our coasts better withstand foreign competition that cheats, that destroys resources, and that engages in what we call pirate fishing. this was a house bill that passed with huge majority on the house side, now having passed on the senate. it can go to the president for his signature. it will be good for fishermen across the country. i think senator vitter -- i thank senator vitter for his consideration and for working to

clear both of these bills this afternoon. with that, i yield the floor. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, smiewj -- assuming it's not too late i would ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of that legislation as well. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: to clarify the request, i would ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the senate bill which represents -- excuse me, mr. president. then i do not make a unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: the request is withdrawn.

mr. vitter: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: