Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, yesterday Republican Senators voted to block the bill to prevent the doubling of the Federal student loan interest rate on July 1. As long as they continue their filibuster, there is no clear way forward to prevent that devastating rate hike less than 2 months from now. If that happens, more than 7.4 million American students will be required to pay an average of $1,000 more per year of school. This is especially important to my State of Iowa--and it is important to all States--where nearly 72 percent of Iowa's college graduates have student loan debt, the fourth highest percentage in the Nation. Those borrowers are carrying an average of $30,000 in student loan debt, which is the third highest in the Nation. In floor debates this week, Republicans claimed that they, too, want to prevent the rate hike. I welcome their support. But if they want to join with us in preventing the rate hike, why in the world won't they let us proceed to the bill? That will give us all the opportunity to debate the bill and offer amendments. I call on my Republican friends, if they want to keep the interest rate hike from doubling on students, to call off the filibuster and let's move ahead with the bill. I am not the only one who wants to end this obstruction by our friends on the Republican side. I have heard from constituents in Iowa who are frustrated at the Senate's failure to act. This is a kitchen-table issue for middle-class Americans, families all across the country. I have heard reports that over 500,000 signatures from students around the country have been delivered to the Hill to show their support for keeping the rate at 3.4 percent. I know many Senators have come to the floor to share stories from their constituents about how the interest rate hike would affect them. I will share a story I received from an Iowa student. Dear Congressman, [or Senator, as the case may be] I am writing you on behalf of myself, current college students, and future college students everywhere. I recently re- enrolled in college to further my education. This decision came after much time and deep thought. The problem wasn't that I didn't want to attend school, it was whether or not I could afford to attend school. I live on my own, hold a full time job that I previously attended a technical school to obtain. This job supports me fully, and as much as I love parts of my job, I know that my decision to re-enroll in school to further my education was the right decision for me. . . . In the middle of all of this preparation, I came across an article in the USA Today that said the Federal Government might raise student loan interest rates. Not just raise, but double them, unless Congress intervenes. I could not believe what I was reading, and feel so passionate about the subject that I had to write a letter to you. I am already struggling on a daily basis to support myself. I live paycheck to paycheck and often have to rely on the savings account I worked so hard to save before graduating high school, along with consistent help from my parents and grandparents. I wish to be independent from this help even though I am thankful that it is there. This increase in interest rates on loans . . . was not only disappointing, it was infuriating to me. This will have an effect for many years beyond what it should and not only for me. I live in Stanwood, IA, a place that not many people have heard of, and I commute the 35 miles to Cedar Rapids every day for my job. . . . So when I saw that these loans that I am relying on to support me and fund my education were going to double, I was heartbroken and I wonder what is wrong with my country? I am very proud to be an American, and more so an Iowan. . . . I believe that the one thing the USA has going for it: supporting our future, but that is quickly fading in front of my eyes. I hope that you read this and feel every ounce of disappointment in our great country as I do, and do everything in your power to not let the interest rate on student loans increase on July 1. I hope you can put faith in the American students who are relying on these loans to educate themselves, and together get our country back on the right track, not headed down the wrong one. Thank you so much for your time, and I hope to hear great things from my representatives soon. Sincerely, a proud fellow Iowan. This is just one of the many stories I have received from my constituents, telling me how detrimental it would be if the rate were to double on July 1. This increase is a looming reality for many students and families if this Senate continues to do what it is doing--and that is to do nothing to bring the bill up and having Republicans filibuster it, and not even letting us proceed on it. For the past 3 days, we have been hearing from Republicans that they want to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent, but they don't like how we are paying for it in our bill. I have said many times that if they don't like that--and our leader came out here, as many have, saying, look, if my Republican friends don't like how we pay for it, let us get on with the bill and they can offer their offset or pay-for. We can vote on it and they can vote on ours. But that is not acceptable to the Republicans. They don't even want the bill to go forward. We have been hearing from Republicans that our offset, which is closing a loophole in the Tax Code that affects subchapter S corporations--and I might add it only affects a very small sliver of subchapter S corporations, very tightly drawn; they can't have more than three shareholders. How about that. And you have to have more than $250,000 in income, and it pertains only to those subchapter S corporations that provide certain kinds of professional services. In other words, it doesn't pertain to real estate, or manufacturing, or anything like that. It only has to do with certain professional services, such as lawyers and accountants, people such as that. Well, the Republicans say that if we do this--close that loophole--it will hurt the ``job creators.'' How many times have I heard that, job creators--that we are going to hurt small businesses. The other side would have you believe that we are doing this for political gain, that somehow we Democrats are doing this for political gain. Well, if that were the truth, why would we pick an offset, a pay-for, to fix a problem that conservatives have railed against in the past? Yes, the problem that we are trying to fix in subchapter S corporations is a problem that conservative Republicans have railed against in the past. I want to refresh my colleagues' memories and set the record straight on this issue of S corporations, the offset we have. For starters, in 2004, the Wall Street Journal editorial page said this on July 13, 2004: Conservative Support for Closing the S Corp Tax Loophole. Senator Edwards talks about the need to provide health care for all, but that didn't stop him from using a clever tax dodge [these are the words of the Wall Street Journal, not mine] to avoid paying $591,000 into the Medicare system. While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed what is known as a ``subchapter S'' corporation, with himself as the sole shareholder. Instead of taking his $26.9 million in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as corporate dividends. Since salary is subject to 2.9 percent Medicare tax, but dividends aren't, that meant he shielded 90 percent of his income. That's not necessarily illegal, but dodging such a large chunk of employment tax skates perilously close to the line . . . CPA Magazine lists it as number 11 of its 15 best underutilized tax loopholes. I ask, is the Wall Street Journal in favor of--what did they say?-- hurting job creators? Are they in favor of that? Is the Wall Street Journal in favor of ``raising taxes on the very businesses we are counting on to hire these young people,'' as the minority leader said on Monday? I repeat, we limit it to only three shareholders. They are going to count on them to hire these young people, he said. What is the minority leader talking about? That same year, in 2004, the late conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote: It is one of the last loopholes left in the Internal Revenue Code, and it is a big one. Here is the whole statement: How can John Edwards explain setting up a dummy corporation--subchapter S--to avoid paying an estimated $290,000 in Medicare taxes in the 2 years before he ran for the Senate? This is a classic subchapter S corporation devised to shelter income, mainly for professionals, such as lawyers (and also syndicated columnists, but not me). It is one of the last loopholes left in the Internal Revenue Code, and it is a big one. That is Robert Novak. Has anyone ever questioned his conservative credentials? Sean Hannity said this: Hey, John Edwards is worth, what, $30 million to $40 million, set up a sub-S corporation to keep him from paying Medicare taxes on 90 percent of his income, and then he lectures the rest of us how Medicare is going broke. Finally, Rush Limbaugh himself said this: . . . and he [Senator Edwards] has also compounded that by structuring his own personal finances to avoid paying Medicare taxes on 90 percent of the nearly $27 million he earned over four years. I ask my Republican colleagues, are Robert Novak, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal all in support of raising taxes? Are they all in support of killing job creators? These are their statements. That is the record. For the last several years, conservative Republicans have been going after this loophole, until they obviously found a Democrat who used it, John Edwards. Lots of people use it, a lot of lawyers and accountants and doctors. A lot of different kinds of professionals have used this loophole to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Here is another classic case where the Republicans say we are using this for political gain. Wait a minute. They are the ones who have been going after this loophole for years. We said: Hey, we finally have something on which we can agree. The Wall Street Journal and all these other people are saying we have to close this loophole. We have the opportunity to do so, and in doing so raise the money both to help Medicare and Social Security and to keep the interest rates on student loans at 3.4 percent. Yet the Republicans will not even allow us to bring it to the floor. So who is playing politics, I ask? Who is playing politics? Well, as I have said before, and I will say again, we have come here with a serious offset--one, as I said, that has been supported--at least closing this loophole has been supported--by conservative Republicans in the past. If anything, it is worse today than it was in 2004. More and more people are finding out about how they do this. They form this little subchapter S corporation and avoid paying their taxes. It is time to close that. We came up with a serious offset we thought would be acceptable on both sides because of the history. We are ready to do this now--ease the concern of so many students and families across the country. The Republicans came and wanted to pay for it by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund. They want to eliminate the one thing that is going to prevent obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes in the future and save us a lot of money. They want to end that and take that money and put it into keeping the interest rates low. They are pitting the low interest rates for students against the health care of children--immunizations for kids--which is what we use this prevention fund for. And for diabetes prevention. That is what we use the fund for. They want to take that away, pitting students against the health of our country. That is not a serious offer. That is not a serious offer by the Republicans. That alternative is going nowhere. Besides, the President has said he would veto that. So I ask my colleagues on the other side to quit playing politics. Quit playing politics with this. Let's bring it up for a vote. Maybe they should listen to the Wall Street Journal, and the now deceased Novak and Fox News and even Rush Limbaugh and Hannity. Let's close this loophole once and for all and do something good with it. Let's do something good with it. Keep the interest rates low for our students in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, here we are again in the Senate on yet another day when families and students across this country are wondering if we are going to do our duty. Are we actually going to move legislation that will keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent on subsidized student loans or are we going to let it go to 6.8 percent-- double--on July 1? We have legislation and we brought it to the floor. Yet yesterday my Republican colleagues voted to not even proceed to it. I think the people of America are saying that this shouldn't happen. We should be able to work these things out. We should move legislation, not obstruct it. Everyone now agrees we should keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent. The Republicans say they want to keep it at 3.4 percent and we say we do. The Republicans were initially opposed to this, but they have gotten onboard. That is fine. I have been here on the floor listening to my colleagues talk about this since Monday. Everyone agrees we have to keep it at 3.4 percent and not let it go up, so it ought to be a bipartisan issue. We ought to be able to move this rapidly and move on to other matters. There are other issues confronting us in the Senate. Yet here we are on the floor again today discussing the student loan interest rate. As I said, we had the vote yesterday to move it forward, but my Republican colleagues blocked us from doing that. They agree we should keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent, but not on how to pay for it. Well, OK, fine; that is a legitimate point of debate and discussion and votes. So why don't we move the bill forward, bring it to the floor, and let's have a debate and discussion on how we pay for it. If they want to offer an amendment, they can offer an amendment and we will vote on it. It seems to me--at least I think--that one of the responsibilities, and maybe privileges but responsibilities, of the majority party in the Senate, whichever party it might be, is to initiate legislation and bring it to the floor. The privilege and responsibility of the minority party is to be able to amend it, to try to make it better as they may see fit. I don't think it should be a privilege and responsibility of the minority party to block everything, but we have seen that happen more and more over the last few years. Republicans won't let us bring a bill to the floor because under the rules it requires 60 votes rather than 51 votes to bring a bill forward. So, again, we are stuck because we can't bring the bill forward. I hope we have another cloture vote. Let's keep having these cloture votes and maybe Republicans then will say, OK, let's move it forward and let's debate it and move on. So I hope that is what we are going to be doing rather than stopping the process in its tracks. It is interesting to note that House and Senate Republicans were silent on this issue until students from around the country became aware of the impending increase and made their voices heard. Democrats were already hard at work on the solution. I would remind my colleagues that earlier this year, in the budget debate in the House, an amendment was offered by Democrats during the House budget process to extend the current rate of 3.4 percent. That amendment lost by a straight party vote. Instead, the Republicans proposed to pay for this by taking money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. That is not an appropriate solution, killing the fund that is preventing cancer and preventing unnecessary diseases in the United States. My friends on the other side would have us believe that nothing bad will happen if we eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund. They call it a slush fund. There is no truth to that at all. The truth is that the elimination of this fund would have disastrous effects on the health of our kids and our families. To eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund will cost us billions in the future for taking care of people who have chronic illnesses and chronic diseases and obesity. We know that an investment in immunizing our kids--for example, for every dollar, it saves us $16 in saved health care costs. To eliminate this fund would lead to a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in every State due to the expected loss of more than 1.5 million doses of lifesaving vaccines and nearly 1,100 skilled public health workers. Again, eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund would mean eliminating vaccines for our kids, eliminating public health workers who know how to deliver these vaccines and respond to outbreaks. We would be losing public health staff at the State and local levels. Eliminating this fund would end support for increased calls to the tobacco quitline, meaning smokers encouraged to quit by the fund's strategic and evidence-based investments thus far would not have the support to keep that quitline going. If current smoking rates persist, 6 million kids living in the United States today will ultimately die from smoking. If we eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, we will be forced to reduce the availability of mental health and substance abuse services to very vulnerable Americans. Eliminating the fund, as the Republicans want to do, would reduce investment in public health laboratory capacity at the State and local levels, thereby reducing the speed with which we can detect and respond to outbreaks and, yes, maybe even terrorist events. It would cut the number of disease detectives that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can train and deploy. These disease detectives are our first line of defense against infectious diseases. Eliminating this fund would result in layoffs, as I said, of public health officials in every State and community who are working on chronic disease prevention, immunization, health-care-associated infections, and other health problems. An elimination of the prevention fund--again, I use the word ``elimination.'' The Republican proposal wouldn't just take some money from the prevention fund, it would kill the prevention fund. It would take every single penny out of it. My friends on the Republican side say: Well, President Obama in his budget took money out of the prevention fund. In fact, Democrats joined with Republicans earlier this year in taking $5 billion out of the life of this fund to help pay for extending the unemployment insurance program for the remainder of this year, as well as extending the payroll tax cut. They use that example to say, Well, we can kill the whole thing. I must be very frank. I was not in favor of that $5 billion cut, but be that as it may, as I used the analogy yesterday, it is one thing to take a couple of pints of blood and another to take all the blood. A person can live if a couple of pints of blood are taken; they can live and get healthy. That is what is happening to the prevention fund. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is alive and well and doing its job even though some money is taken out of it. What the Republicans want to do is take all the blood out and kill the whole program. President Obama has said he will veto this bill if there are any cuts in the Prevention and Public Health Fund. So there has been a line drawn. We took some money out of it before, but no more. That is it; no more money is coming out of this prevention fund because of the good it is doing in this country. An elimination of this fund, which the Republicans want to do, would stop in midstream across our country efforts to address the risk factors for heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer--the leading causes of death and health care costs. Yesterday in this Chamber I read from a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that finds that if we could prevent the obesity rate from increasing past its current 34-percent rate right now, we could save nearly $550 billion in the next 20 years. In 1980, the obesity rate was right at about 15 percent in this country. Today, as I said, it is 34 percent. If it increases at the rate they expect, looking at all indicators now, 42 percent of all Americans will be obese by 2030 and one out of every four of them will be severely obese. That means a huge increase in adult onset diabetes and all the accompanying health care risks and costs, including heart disease and stroke, that accompany obesity. We know how to address it. We have evidence-based programs that we know work in keeping the obesity rate down. That is what the prevention fund does. The Republicans want to kill it. They say no, get rid of it. Cuts to our chronic disease prevention programs would mean 120 million Americans--1 in every 3 citizens--would lose access to preventive services. It would mean $103 million no longer available to States and counties and local jurisdictions to provide these services. Over 20 million Americans in rural areas in New York and in Iowa and all across this country would no longer have access to preventive services and programs. The American people get it. Our citizens, whom we represent, get it. They understand. A poll was taken which said that voters overwhelmingly support more investment in prevention. This is from a 2009 public opinion poll: 71 percent of Americans polled said yes, do more, invest more in prevention. Our fellow citizens are crying out to us for help. They want help. They want to know what to do. How do they change? What can we do in our communities, our schools, our workplaces, our clinics, our community health centers? What can we do so that we don't get sick, so we don't get obese or diabetes, so we don't have heart disease? Most people don't know what to do. They need some help. They need information. They need support. That is what this prevention fund does. We know it works. We know. We have evidence-based programs out there that work. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is doing an outstanding job across this country in these programs: from community programs, to public health infrastructure, to clinical preventive services, research, tobacco prevention programs, detection and prevention of infectious diseases, and training and preparing the public health workforce--all of this. That is why prevention is not just something people go into a doctor's office to get a shot for or get a prescription for and people get a pill for. Prevention encompasses a lot of different things-- everything from newborn screening, immunizations for children, school- based programs, and better food and nutrition in our school meals for kids. Communities change the way they operate and do things--more walking paths, more bike paths. The other day there was something said about Illinois had used some of this for signage and walking paths for kids. I pointed out, yes, they did. What happened is the number of kids walking to school increased, and that cut down on the number of buses they had to use. It saved the school some money, and the kids got healthier. I have often used the example that when I first moved to Washington in 1979, when I was in the House, my wife and I purchased a home in Virginia. We still live there. One of the reasons we bought it was because we were about a mile away from a school, a high school. We thought: That is great. The kids can just walk to school. Little did I know there were no walking paths to the school. It was a busy street. There was a sidewalk for a little ways, and then there was not one. The kids could not walk. So they had to take a bus just to go 1 mile. So, again, communities putting in sidewalks, safe passages for kids to do that, that is healthy living. I have seen instances in my own State where communities have put in walking paths for the elderly, for senior citizens, so they do not have a lot of steps and things to go up and down. You would be amazed how many people use that and stay healthy. Supporting systems in our workplaces, making our workplaces more healthy, helping businesses understand what they can do to provide a healthier workplace for people--examples abound all over this country. I say to the Acting President pro tempore, I am sure I do not know all the instances in New York State, but I will bet you communities there have gotten together and thought about how to make life a little bit more healthy, how to support a more healthy infrastructure for their people. Some communities are coming up with very ingenious ideas. I say more power to them. That is what the Prevention Fund is for--to help them, to encourage them, to give them the kind of support they need to provide that healthy living. I have said many times, it is interesting that in America it is easy to be unhealthy and hard to be healthy. One would think it should be the other way around. It should be easy to be healthy and harder to be unhealthy. It is just the other way around. So what we are trying to do with some part of the prevention fund-- not all of it; part of it--is to make it easier to be healthy, to make that an easier option for people. So if we both agree--Republicans and Democrats--on the fact that we need to keep the interest rate on student loans at 3.4 percent, then the debate is just on the offset. As I have said, Republicans want to kill the prevention fund. The American people have said loudly: No, we do not want to do that. We want more investment in prevention. We do not want to get sick. We do not want to get obese. We want to quit smoking. We want our kids to be healthy. We want them to have healthier food, better exercise. Republicans are saying: Well, we are just not going to do that. I guess we will pay more for it in chronic illnesses and diseases down the line. Well, our offset is one that I think is legitimate and sound, closing a loophole in the Tax Code. That means more money would go into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and it would help us keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent. Education has always, and I hope will always, remain a bipartisan issue here. I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table with a serious offset--a serious offset. If they do not like what we have proposed, please come with something that is serious. Eliminating the prevention fund is a no-starter. As the President said, he would veto it. So why push it? I think this is an opportunity for all of us to come together and show the American people this body is not broken; we can work with each other and get things done for the good of our people. Again, I encourage my Republican colleagues to allow us to move forward on the bill. Do not keep blocking it. If they want to offer a different offset, fine. Not this one, not the elimination of the prevention fund because that is not serious. That is not going anywhere. If they have some other ideas, bring them forward. As of yet we have seen nothing from my Republican colleagues other than stopping the bill--stopping it, stopping it, stopping it. So I hope they will come to the table, and I hope we can move this bill forward. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sarah Watt and Erica Kaldenberg be granted floor privileges for the duration of S. 2343, the Stop Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in a little over a half an hour we will have a vote on whether we are even going to proceed to the bill that will keep interest rates on our subsidized Stafford loans at 3.4 percent for the next year or whether they will go up double on July 1. This is just a vote on going to the bill. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Republicans do not even want to go to the bill. Well, perhaps they are afraid if the vote really comes down to the bill itself and the, quote, offset, that maybe some of my friends on the other side of the aisle will think that students may be a little bit more important than a few wealthy people in this country who are not paying their fair share of taxes. But they are going to hide behind this motion to proceed. So that is what the vote is at noon. Are we going to even go to the bill so we can debate it, offer amendments, vote it up or down? Republicans do not even want to go there. They do not even want to proceed to the bill. They have clouded it up in a lot of rhetoric about offsets and how we are going to pay for this. It comes down to a choice. We have a serious offer, a serious offer, a serious offset, one which is widely recognized as a terrible loophole. By closing that loophole--which affects a microcosm of individuals in this country--we are able to pay for keeping the interest rate at 3.4 percent for another year. My friends on the other side of the aisle say, well, they want to keep the 3.4-percent interest rate, but they want to pay for it by eliminating--eliminating--killing the Prevention and Public Health Fund that goes to help make sure our kids do not get diabetes, to make sure we fight obesity, that we cut down on smoking in this country, that we make sure kids get their vaccinations--all the things that go to save us money in health care. That is the prevention fund. They want to take that money away from there. They want to end that program. That is their offset. Well, if that is what they want, fine. But let's get to the bill. If they want to offer that as an offset, fine, we will vote on it. But they do not even want to go to the bill. Their priorities are not the students. Their priorities are protecting a small class of individuals in this country who use the Tax Code to avoid paying their fair share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. We have heard all about: job creators, job creators; oh, we Democrats are going after these job creators. Well, the offset we have only affects subchapter S corporations, and only subchapter S corporations that have three or less stockholders--three or less. These are usually family members. They do not create any jobs--three or less. If you have five or ten or more, you are not covered by this; only if you have three or less, and only--only--if you have more than $250,000 a year in income. It is very narrowly drawn, very narrowly drawn. But the Joint Tax Committee scores this saying that over 10 years, by closing this loophole, we put $6 billion into the Medicare trust fund and $3 billion into the Social Security trust fund. So there is $9 billion there of money where people using this loophole--a few people using this loophole--are able to escape paying their share of Medicare and Social Security taxes. We are saying, let's close that loophole. Let's use those savings, put them into the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. Under the scoring system here, any revenue that is raised or mandatory cuts go to offset any increases in mandatory spending. Well, that is kind of budget jargon around this place. All it means is, by closing this loophole, we are able to do two important things: one, put more money into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and keep the interest rate for students at 3.4 percent for another year. Not a bad deal. I think a very good deal. But my friends on the other side are not going to go there. They want to kill the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I always enjoy engaging in good debate with my friend from Tennessee. He is a very thoughtful Senator, a very thoughtful member of our Committee too, and a good friend. Having been a former Secretary of Education, he has a depth and wellspring of knowledge about education, and I respect that greatly. We obviously see things a little bit differently, but that is the nature of the animal here. I say to my friend that without getting into a point-by-point rebuttal, I wish to make it clear the President did put in his budget taking some money out of the prevention fund. I assume my friend knows I was not much in favor of that proposal. Then it was used later on to extend the unemployment insurance and also the payroll tax cut until the end of this year. That money was used for that. I was not very supportive of that. I thought we should have taken the money from elsewhere. At least the President has said that is it, no more. We will take a nick out of that prevention fund but no more. That is why he issued a statement of administration policy saying he would veto this bill if it had any cuts to the Prevention and Public Health Fund. I used the analogy a while ago that the cut the President proposed, which was supported on our side, to extend the payroll tax cuts to the end of the year, I likened that to taking a couple pints of blood--we can take a couple pints of blood and still get our health back and go on. The proposal of my friend from Tennessee takes all our blood or all the prevention fund money. When we do that, we are dead. That is the analogy I have used. They took a couple pints of blood, which I was opposed to, but the prevention fund is still alive and healthy and is doing its job. It is going to do even more of its job in the future, as long as we don't take any more money out of it, and the President has said he will not do that. I wanted to make that clear. That happened one time; no more. Even though Senators supported it on our side--and there were people who supported that on our side--they have said no more; we are not taking more out of that fund. Lastly, I cannot help but also talk about this $61 billion the Senator from Tennessee keeps talking about. As I said yesterday, he is right in one way; that we did spend it. The question is, What did we spend it on? Well, as I said, $36 billion went to increased Pell grants. I don't think my friend from Tennessee would want to cut Pell grants. I think he is a pretty good supporter of Pell grants. That is where $36 billion of that went. And $750 million went to the College Access Challenge Grant Program, $2.55 billion went to historically Black colleges and universities, and $2 billion went for community colleges. So my friend may be right. Maybe we could reduce those interest rates a little bit. But what that money is being used for is basically students. Now, I will be honest about this. Ten billion dollars went for decreasing the deficit. I don't think my friend from Tennessee would be opposed to that. And $9.2 billion went to other health care programs, including requiring dependent coverage in the health care bill. In other words, how many students now are covered under their parents' policies until they are age 26? They didn't have that before. Now they have it. So some of this money was used to invest in that or community health care centers. Yes, we did do that by providing some of the money from that--$9.2 billion of that--for some specific types of items in that health care bill. Lastly, Mr. President, I just have to ask a question. Are we having a health care debate here or an education debate? I thought we were talking about education. We are talking about whether student loan interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans are going to double on July 1. Now it has morphed into some kind of big health care debate. I have heard it said that the other side wants to keep the interest rates at 3.4-percent for a year. OK, fine. The question is, How do we pay for it? That is really the question. We have offered in good faith, I believe, a serious proposal: closing the loophole that affects a very small sliver of people in this country who are using this sort of a fog surrounding Subchapter S corporations to escape paying their fair share of Medicare and Social Security taxes. Yesterday, someone on the other side said: Well, we can audit them. We can do IRS audits. The IRS only audits one-half of 1 percent of subchapter S corporation filings. So if there is kind of a fog out there and I get to decide as a taxpayer, as a subchapter S corporation, whether I get paid or whether it is dividends, what am I going to say? Dividends. Because my odds are 95.5 percent that they are never going to audit me--95.5 percent. Those are pretty good odds. That is why the Joint Tax Committee said that by closing this loophole--by closing this loophole--we save over $9 billion, put into the Social Security fund and Medicare fund, and at the same time be able to keep the interest rate for students at 3.4 percent. That is a serious offer. The offer from the other side is not serious. They want to kill the prevention fund. That is not serious at all, but that is where they are coming from. Well, I say let's have a vote. Let's at least move the bill. That is what the vote is at noon, is moving the bill, getting it out there so we can have a debate on the bill and how we pay for it. Obviously, my friends on the other side of the aisle don't even want to bring up the bill. They do not want to bring it up. They are going to vote against cloture, against bringing up the bill to even discuss it and vote on it. Mr. President, I will close by urging all Senators to support the cloture motion so that we can get to the bill and students and their families will know that we are serious about this and that on July 1 their interest rates are not going to double on our middle-class families. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are with an empty Senate Chamber, while families across the country are wondering whether they are going to have to come up with more money to pay higher interest rates on student loans beginning July 1. It is going to happen unless we take action. We have tried to take action, but, frankly, my friends on the other side, the Republicans, won't even let us go to the bill. We had our vote almost 3 hours ago. We recessed for our party conferences, as we do every Tuesday. Here we sit, without being able to even proceed to the bill because the Republicans voted against closing down debate and moving to the bill and offering amendments and having an up-or-down vote. The pattern is all too familiar, as we know, over the last few years: more and more filibusters, more and more cloture motions to end the debate. It is unfair to families and students all over America. Here I address my comments to students. They are the ones who are trying to get a higher education, because they know that is the pathway, the gateway to middle-class America. Young people today know that the jobs of the future will require a higher education. They understand that. So many are scrambling to put together resources to pay for college. We had a young woman this morning, Clarise McCants, who spoke with us. She is the first in her family to go to college. She is from Philadelphia, and she goes to Howard University. She comes from a very poor background and a poor family. She relies on Pell grants, a work-study program, and summer work jobs, plus her subsidized loans. If I am not mistaken, she has somewhere in the neighborhood of $13,000 or $15,000 right now in debt. The last thing Clarise McCants needs is to have an additional $1,000 a year put on her student loan interest. That is what will happen on July 1, unless we act here. It is unfair to her and to millions of students all over the country that we sit here and do nothing, while they wonder whether they are going to have to pay more in interest charges on July 1. It is unfair. We have on our side a solid proposal to keep the interest rates down for the next year at 3.4 percent, where they are now, rather than having them double to 6.8 percent. To do that, to pay for it, we have proposed that we close a glaring loophole in the Tax Code that applies only to subchapter S corporations. A lot of people say, what does that gobbledygook mean? A subchapter S corporation is for very small corporations. Compared to the giant corporations you normally think of, they are very small. Within that small universe of subchapter S corporations, as they are called, there is even a smaller universe. That small universe is comprised of professionals such as lawyers and accountants, people who give advice and do their own work, and they form a small corporation. Because of the fog that surrounds whether someone is paid a salary or is paid from dividends, many people who form these subchapter S corporations are not paying their fair share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. We have proposed that we draw a bright line so that people know whether they are getting paid a salary or wages, or whether it is coming out of dividends. The Joint Tax Committee says this will raise for us $9 billion over the next several years. That is enough to help us pay for keeping the interest rates low. Our proposal is three things: closing the tax loophole, it puts more money into the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, and third, it helps us keep interest rates low for students in this country. You would think that would be a no-brainer. I think most people would say that is kind of a no-brainer. But our friends on the Republican side refuse to let us even bring the bill up for debate and a vote. My Republican friends have suggested a different way of paying for this. They want to protect those few people in the subchapter S corporations--very wealthy people--from paying those taxes. They have suggested--the Republicans--that instead we take all the money to pay for keeping interest rates low out of the Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund--it is known as the prevention fund--which is in the Affordable Care Act. Again, that would drain all the money out. It would completely eliminate the program. I suggest that people look at today's headline in USA Today this morning. It says that 42 percent of the adult population by 2030 is expected to be obese. Out of that, one out of four will be severely obese. The same report was also in the Washington Post this morning. The study predicts that 42 percent of Americans will be obese by 2030, which will shorten life, and they will incur large medical expenses. In fact, if obesity stays at its current level and doesn't increase, the savings and projected health care costs will be considerable--about $550 billion, $\1/2\ trillion. That is what the prevention fund is doing. It is out there working every day--it has only been in existence a couple years now--putting things in place to prevent people from being obese, to prevent kids from getting the adult onset of diabetes at 10, 11, and 12 years of age. In 1980, only 15 percent of Americans were obese. Today, it is about 34 percent. What if we had in place in the 1980s, 1990s, and in the last decade the prevention fund that we have, which does all of the things necessary to help people make healthy choices and lead healthy lives and not become obese? Think of the savings we would have in our health care system today if we had a prevention fund like that in 1980, and rather than having 34 percent obese people in America today, we had 15 or 16 percent. Well, projecting that forward to 2030, if we don't act now, 42 percent will be obese. Again, it will cost us $550 billion in the next 20 years. Preventing this, which we know we can do--we have evidence-based proof that certain interventions and programs work. Not only does it keep obesity down, but diabetes and heart disease, and related illnesses will be lessened, thus saving us even more money. The prevention fund is what the Republicans want to kill, eliminate. I think that is disappointing and disturbing, after all that we know and have seen in the past on prevention and public health and what we can do to prevent illness, obesity, and diabetes in children, to say we are not going to put the resources forward to prevent that. We know that for every dollar we invest in prevention, we are reaping anywhere from $3 to $10, or more, in the first couple years. Here we are at an impasse again. Once again, the Senate is at an impasse because we cannot move to a bill. We can't amend it, vote on it, or debate it--other than talking about it right now as I am doing. The Republicans refuse to let us even get to the bill. We will continue to tell the American people what is at stake here and what the differences are. These are policy differences. The American people should know what those policy differences are. The Republicans say they want to keep the student interest rate at 3.4 percent. We say we do, too. Well, OK, what is the difference? The policy difference is in how we pay for it, how we pay to make sure we keep the interest rates low. I think the logical thing would be to have the bill come to the Senate floor and offer amendments. If the Republicans want to offer an amendment to take the money out of the prevention fund and kill and eliminate the fund, let them do it, and we will vote on it; we will see if we have the votes to do that. They can debate it if they want, and we will be glad to debate and discuss closing this tax loophole on subchapter S corporations. I think that would be a healthy debate and a policy difference that the American people should see, and they can decide between the two sources of how we are going to pay for this. We are going to continue to talk about this because I think the American people should know what is at stake here in this filibuster that we have in front of us right now. I know my friends on the other side say that President Obama wanted to take some money out of the prevention fund. Well, that did happen, in order to extend for 1 year the unemployment insurance provisions and also the payroll tax cut this year. They seem to think that since we have already taken some money out of the prevention fund, we can kill the whole thing. My analogy this morning was that it is one thing to take a couple pints of blood, but it is another to take all your blood. So they took some nicks out of the prevention fund, which I didn't support, but the fund is still healthy, alive, and doing its job. It could do more if it had more money. Nonetheless, it is still there doing its job. The Republicans are saying drain all the blood out and kill the whole thing. I don't think the American people want to go there. It seems to me that it doesn't make common sense that we would pit the health of the American people--and women's health especially, children's health, and the elderly, who are benefitting right now from this prevention fund. There are immunizations, childhood checkups, and provisions that go out into communities for healthier living in our communities. There is better nutrition for our kids in schools, fresh fruits and vegetables, and more physical activity. That is all in the prevention fund. That is what they want to do away with. It is too bad that they are trying to pit the health of women and children and the future against students. That is not right. As I have said many times--and keep saying--I have heard from the other side that we are going after job creators. If we raise the taxes, you see, on subchapter S corporations--if we close that loophole, we are hurting job creators. First of all, the provisions in our bill on subchapter S only affect a corporation with three or fewer stockholders--hardly job creators. I mean, if somebody wants to start a corporation with 5, 10, 15, 20, that is different. This doesn't touch them. It only touches someone who has less than three shareholders, if their income is over $250,000 a year as a joint filer, and if they are a subchapter S corporation. Some say: Well, you know, they can get audited. I had an example I used the other day of a person who was claiming he didn't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes because he wasn't a subchapter S corporation. The individual was pretty ingenious. He had set up a subchapter S corporation, and he contributed--donated--his time. In exchange he got dividend payments--profits--from this subchapter S, as did his wife and his child. There were three--he, his wife, and child, and he did not pay Social Security taxes. Well, he happened to get audited, and the Justice Department took him to court, to Tax Court, and the Tax Court found out he really was being paid. He was making a salary, an income, and he had to pay Social Security taxes on that. Well, when I used that example, my friends on the Republican side said: Well, that is just it. All we have to do is just audit them, and we don't have to close this loophole. I had to point out that only \1/ 2\ of 1 percent of all filings of subchapter S corporations are ever audited. So if someone is out there and there is not a bright line as to whether they are salaried or are getting dividends--it is kind of a fog out there--why wouldn't they err on the side of saying: I don't have to pay those taxes because the odds are 99.5 to 1 they will never get audited. Those are pretty good odds--99.5 percent of the time no one is ever audited. If they are audited, they get a slap on the wrist, pay a little fine, and move on. So what our bill does is to provide certainty. It provides certainty to subchapter S corporations that if they fall on this side of the line, they are salaried, if they have less than three shareholders. If they fall on the other side, they can get dividends, and that way they don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Quite frankly, I think that would be in the best interest of everyone, including the subchapter S corporations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article that appeared in the Washington Post this morning by David Brown--the study that predicts 42 percent of Americans will be obese in 2030.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I hope the Republicans will talk among themselves. I hope they will listen to the students and their families who don't want to be hung out there this week and next week and on and on and on not knowing whether they are going to have to pay higher interest rates on their student loans. Let's have cloture. Let's bring up the bill, and then let's vote on it. If they have amendments, fine, we will vote on them. But at least let's move the bill. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2012, at 3 p.m.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Expanding Refinancing Opportunities to Improve the Housing Market.''

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 10 a.m. in SD 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``The High Cost of High Prices for HIV/AIDS Drugs and the Prize Fund Alternative.'' For further information regarding this hearing, please contact the subcommittee on (202) 224 5480.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 10 a.m. in SD 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Identifying Opportunities for Health Care Delivery System Reform: Lessons from the Front Line.'' For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the committee on (202) 224 7675.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will meet in open session on Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 10 a.m. in SD G50 Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Beyond Seclusion and Restraint: Creating Positive Learning Environments for All Students.'' For further information regarding this meeting, please contact the committee on (202) 228 3453. committee on indian affairs

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Marissa Wizig of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: We are now on the Stop The Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012, is that not correct?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I can't emphasize strongly enough the importance and the urgency of the legislation before us--the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012--which the majority leader spoke about. On July 1, unless Congress intervenes, the interest rate on Federal student loan debt is set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. More than 7.4 million American students, including an estimated 255,000 students enrolled in Iowa colleges and universities, will be required to pay an average of $1,000 more per year of school. The bill before us is straightforward and it is fully paid for. It keeps the interest rate at 3.4 percent, and the cost is offset by closing a tax loophole that benefits certain high-income professional service providers. I wish to thank Senator Reid for his leadership in advancing this critical legislation. I also thank President Obama for making this legislation an urgent priority and for visiting college campuses across the country to speak out on this urgent problem facing our Nation's students and their families. In today's global knowledge-based economy, an education beyond high school is no longer an option but a necessity. A worker with a bachelor's degree earns 85 percent more, on average, than a high school graduate. Almost two-thirds of the job vacancies between now and 2018 will require some postsecondary education, and more than half of those jobs will require at least a bachelor's degree. You can see by this chart, as I said, 63 percent of the jobs will require at least some college education--either some college, an associate's degree or bachelor's degree or more. And that is by 2018. The demand is going to grow even beyond that. These statistics convey a very clear message: Higher education is the key to entry not only to the middle class but to a middle-class life. Another message is equally clear, and that is America's economic competitiveness and growth depends on a highly educated and highly skilled workforce. That is why the ever-growing mountain of student loan debt is a major concern to me as the chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and also a major concern for families all across America who are struggling to get by. It is a shocking fact that total student loan debt has now surpassed total credit card debt for the first time ever, with $867 billion right now in student loans, auto loans at $734 billion, and credit cards at $704 billion. So for the first time ever, American families now owe more on school loans than they do on their car loans or on their credit cards. Again I want to bring this closer to my own home. It affects Iowans profoundly. Nearly 72 percent of Iowa's college graduates have debt-- the fourth highest percentage in the Nation. And those borrowers have an average of $30,000 in student loan debt, which is the third highest level in the Nation. Over the past 3 years, President Obama and Congress have taken robust steps to improve college affordability and help our students succeed. From the Recovery Act and its unprecedented support for our education systems, to the student loan reforms that enabled us to help more students through larger Pell grants, and most recently our efforts to make it easier for students to repay their loans--this all happened in the last few years--we have made major strides toward the President's goal--and I hope it would be our shared goal--of reclaiming America's standing by 2020 as the country with the highest proportion of college graduates. Needless to say, it will be much harder to reach this goal if Congress allows interest rates to double on July 1. As I said, more than 7.4 million American students will be required to pay an average of $1,000 over the lifetime of their loan for each year they borrow. Again, if you look at this chart, it shows what is happening. If the interest rate is paid at 3.4 percent, we are looking at about $883 in interest over the life of the average loan. Double that interest rate and it goes to $1,876. That is at 6.8 percent. So the average savings to the average student would be almost $1,000 a year. I might add that the 255,404 borrowers in Iowa will save an estimated total of $254 million with this bill in front of us. With today's tough economy, and given the very high unemployment rate among young Americans, it is absolutely unacceptable to ask middle- class families to shoulder sharply higher student loan interest payments. We must not allow this to happen. If we look closer at the characteristics of students who will be impacted by this interest rate hike, we see that it affects middle- class families and vulnerable students from disadvantaged backgrounds at the very time when they are under enormous financial strain. If we look at who gets the subsidized loans, from this chart we can see, by family income, dependent students, their family income is less than $60,000 a year. If we look at the independent student loan borrowers, their income is less than $50,000 a year, and 89 percent of them earn less than $50,000. Of the dependent student loan borrowers, 60 percent are from families who earn less than $60,000. I might also add that 7 out of 10 of those independent students here reported under $30,000 a year in income. So allowing the interest rate to double would also disproportionately affect minority students who account for 40 percent of these borrowers. So 40 percent of these borrowers are minority students. This bill, again, would prevent the interest rate from doubling on July 1 for those borrowers. So with the bill before us, we are considering a pragmatic and fiscally responsible solution to this problem that will keep interest rates low for more than 7.4 million students. Again, the bill is fully paid for, and we offset the cost by raising revenues in a way that will provide a solution to a longstanding problem in the Tax Code that has been subject to widespread abuse. Now, let me just define how this measure is paid for. For many years we have seen avoidance of properly owed Social Security and Medicare taxes by some subchapter S stockholders who can declare that a portion of their income is effectively profit and therefore not subject to Social Security or Medicare taxes. This is not supposed to be a choice that is made at the whim of the taxpayer. It should be based on objective facts. The offset in this legislation does just that. It creates a bright-line test for a small share of subchapter S shareholders--basically, those engaged in professions such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants and lobbyists--whose financial gains they have come from the work they do. It is narrowly tailored to cover only those subchapter S organizations in which there are three or fewer stockholders, and only for those earning $250,000 on joint filings. With this bright-line test, the Medicare and Social Security trust fund will receive the funds that are properly owed, which are not received today because they are counted not as income but as profits. My friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed a different offset to pay for keeping the interest rate at 3.4 percent. The bill that passed the House of Representatives and the legislation proposed by Senator Alexander of Tennessee would offset the cost of this bill by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund which was created by the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act. In short, rather than put an end to a widespread abuse of the Tax Code, my friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing that we eliminate the sole dedicated source of Federal funding for critical investments in preventing disease and keeping women and children and elderly families healthy. They want to eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Many of my Republican colleagues have acknowledged the critical importance of investing in prevention and wellness, which makes the use of this offset that is eliminating it all the more troubling. Preventing disease, expanding access to screenings, encouraging people to stop using tobacco--these used to be bipartisan goals strongly supported by a vast majority of Republicans and Democrats alike. So in the affordable care act we created the prevention fund, with the express goal of ramping up our investments in these prevention and wellness initiatives, again, with Republican support. Here are quotes from two Republican leaders. Senator Kyl, on July 12, 2010, just a few months after we passed the affordable care act, said: One of the things we did in the health care legislation was to provide a lot of different incentives for preventive care, for screening to try to help people avoid illnesses on the theory that it would be a lot cheaper if we didn't do a lot of treatment that was unnecessary. I couldn't agree more. The Republican leader, Senator McConnell, said in an op-ed the same year, 2010: Congress should be able to work together on our practical ideas that the American people support, such as . . . encouraging wellness and prevention programs that have proved to be effective in cutting costs and improving care. That was less than 2 years ago, right after passage of the health reform law. But now Republicans are making outrageous partisan attacks on the prevention fund. I find this deeply disturbing and disappointing. It is not hard to imagine the message gurus, those who hone messages, telling Republicans: Here is all you have to do. Just smear the prevention fund by calling it a slush fund. How many times have I heard that: the prevention fund is a slush fund? I have heard it in committee, I have heard it on the floor, I have seen it in print, Republicans calling the prevention fund a slush fund. Well, this is shameful. That term ``slush fund'' is a malicious untruth. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is the prevention fund has been a giant step forward for public health in our Nation. Typically, prevention and public health initiatives are an afterthought. This means important community-based interventions often go unsupported. The prevention fund is making it possible for us to make national investments in evidence-based programs that promote physical activity, improved nutrition, and reduced tobacco use. Well, these are the investments we make. This prevention fund, which Republicans want to eliminate, invests $226 million to reduce chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart disease. That minimizes the $440 billion a year in health care costs from heart disease alone. It invests $93 million for antitobacco education and support campaigns to minimize the fact that over 6 million kids will die from smoking if the current rates persist. It invests $190 million for childhood immunization programs, again, to minimize the $3 billion a year in unnecessary health care costs right now. I might just add the lead editorial in today's New York Times said, ``No Longer Just `Adult Onset'.'' That is the head of it. I will not read it all, but I think there are a few pertinent paragraphs in the Times editorial. It starts off by saying: A study of diabetes in overweight and obese youngsters bears an ominous warning about future health care trends in this country. It found that Type 2 diabetes, a new scourge among young people, progresses faster and is harder to treat in youngsters than in adults. The toll on their health as they grow older could be devastating. This new study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Reading further: Some experts suggest that young patients at risk of diabetes need to be detected earlier and treated more aggressively. But the long-term goal should be prevention of obesity and of diabetes. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, are bent on dismantling health care reforms that could greatly assist in curbing the obesity epidemic. The Republican-dominated House last month narrowly passed a bill that would eliminate a Prevention and Public Health Fund, established under the reform law, in part to pay for lowering the interest rate on subsidized student loans for this year. The fund is already providing grants to state and local governments to help pay for programs to fight obesity and prevent chronic diseases, including diabetes, in the community, the workplace and among minority groups that have high rates of obesity and diabetes. Killing off this program would be hugely costly to Americans' health and future health care costs. There is no explanation for this move, except for the usual anti-health care reform demagoguery. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the full editorial.

Mr. HARKIN. I don't know that I can make it any more clear than the New York Times editorial, and there is not the time to mention all of the ways this fund is already making Americans healthier. But I want to mention several representative investments that are happening, again, right now. I mentioned those right here, the $226 million for diabetes and heart disease, the $93 million for antitobacco education, the $190 million, again, for childhood immunization programs. I might just go back to that first on the heart disease because heart disease disproportionately affects women. Most people don't know that. I think most people would say the No. 1 cause of death in women today might be breast cancer. Not so. The No. 1 cause of death for women in this country is heart disease. Some 42 million women in America are currently living with some form of heart disease, and the World Health Organization estimates that a staggering 80 percent of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke could be prevented just from changes in smoking, nutrition, and physical activity alone. That is what this prevention fund is doing right now. Moreover, this investment by the prevention fund isn't only saving lives, but it is saving money. Right now, heart disease costs our Nation about $440 billion a year. We can reduce those costs. I might also mention smoking. Cigarette smoking also kills an estimated 173,000 women every year. If current smoking rates persist, more than 6 million kids will die from smoking. The new national antitobacco ad campaign called Tips From a Former Smoker is being supported by this prevention fund. I think many of us probably have seen these ads. They are extremely powerful and effective ads, and they are going to save lives. In fact, this ad campaign is expected to inspire a half million quit attempts and help at least 50,000 Americans quit smoking forever. I might just add that within 2 days of these ads first appearing, the number of phone calls to quit-smoking lines tripled from people who wanted help in quitting smoking. I mentioned the immunization programs for kids. These investments from the prevention fund aren't just at the national level, they are also in our communities. This fund is helping States and cities and towns to implement evidence-based programs that meet their particular local needs. For example, in Illinois, the State has made improvements to its sidewalks and has marked crossings to increase levels of student physical activity. Because of these improvements, the number of students who are walking to school has doubled. That is a good thing. So not only is this good for their health; it is expected to save the school system about $67,000 yearly on bus costs. In Mobile, AL, Mobile County officials enacted a comprehensive smoke- free policy expected to protect 13,000 residents and visitors from being exposed to secondhand smoke. All across America, the prevention fund is investing in proven, locally developed programs that promote health and wellness. These evidence-based programs not only improve health but, as I said, will help us save money in health care costs. According to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, programs such as the National Diabetes Prevention Program could prevent or delay nearly 885,000 cases of type 2 diabetes, saving our health care system about $5.7 billion over the next 25 years. The National Diabetes Prevention Program is a public-private partnership of health care organizations working together to prevent the type 2 diabetes the New York Times editorial was talking about. Given that in 2007 diabetes alone accounted for $116 billion in direct medical costs, it is critical we continue these investments. Again, here is how this investment is returned, the return on investment for public health care spending. For every $1 spent on childhood immunizations, we save $16.50--proven; tobacco control programs, for every $1 we save $5; for chronic disease prevention, for every $1 we save $5.60; for workplace wellness programs, $3.27. If we want to look at it just in terms of dollars and not just in terms of lives, we are saving money also. The prevention fund's investments in cancer prevention also provide an opportunity to save lives and money. In 2007, the direct and indirect costs of cancer, which account for nearly one out of every four deaths in the United States, totaled about $123 billion. Earlier this year, researchers found nearly half of U.S. cancer deaths could be prevented--again, through the kinds of programs the prevention fund is funding today. Preventable U.S. cancer deaths, about 50 percent; preventable deaths from heart disease, diabetes, and stroke, about 80 percent. This is what the prevention fund is going after. For the life of me, I have never understood those who want to get rid of the prevention fund, yet are willing to pump untold billions, trillions of dollars into patching, fixing, mending surgery and health care costs down the line. Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle never learned the old axiom of Ben Franklin about an ounce of prevention is worth about a pound of cure. Here, an ounce of prevention is worth about 10 pounds of cure or more. The list goes on. Recently, the Trust for America's Health released a study showing that a 5-percent reduction in the obesity rate could yield more than $600 billion in savings on health care costs over a 20- year period of time--a 5-percent reduction. Studies such as this one confirm what common sense tells us, that prevention is the best medicine for our bodies and for our budgets. That is why nearly 800 organizations have spoken out against these misguided efforts to slash or eliminate the prevention fund. These organizations, such as the Young Invincibles, the U.S. Student Association, the American Diabetes Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, have all said: No, don't cut, don't eliminate the prevention fund. Despite misguided efforts to cut or eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, most Americans understand what is at stake. Prior to the prevention fund, for every $1 spent on health care, 75 cents went to treating people with chronic illnesses and only about 4 cents went to prevention: 75 cents taking care of people later on with chronic diseases that are preventable, only 4 cents out of every $1 went to prevention. This underinvestment has had devastating consequences. Nearly half of American adults have at least one chronic condition. Yes, you heard me right. Nearly half of American adults have at least one chronic condition, and two-thirds of the increase in health care spending between 1987 and 2000 was due to the increased prevalence of chronic diseases. So two-thirds of our budget, of the increase in spending, is on chronic diseases. Yet since we can reduce those chronic diseases through prevention, one would think we would want to increase that 4 cents a little bit--4 cents on the $1 we are spending right now. This prevention fund gives us an unprecedented opportunity to bend the cost curve. How many times have I heard about bending the cost curve in medicine? The best way to do it is to prevent chronic diseases. The transformation of America into a true wellness society, a society that focuses on preventing diseases, saving lives and thereby money is the most cost-effective way to proceed. As we can see, to slander the prevention fund as a so-called slush fund is a shameful mischaracterization. This fund is saving lives and saving money. Eliminating this fund--as proposed by my friend from Tennessee--would be bad public policy, a serious case of misplaced priorities. The very idea that Republicans would slash prevention in public health care so a small group of high-income taxpayers can continue to abuse the Tax Code I find simply unacceptable. Before I close my remarks, I would like to address an egregious mischaracterization that I have heard from the other side of the aisle. Some Republicans claim Democrats, in our historic reform of the student loan program, took money that had been going to students and used it to pay for the health care bill. I have heard that a lot of times. Again, that is simply not so. The reforms passed by Democrats in Congress--I might add over vehement Republican opposition--did not take a single dime from students. Instead, the bill eliminated wasteful, taxpayer-funded subsidies to banks by converting all new Federal student loans to a more stable, reliable, cost-efficient direct loan program and redirected that money to students, to deficit reduction, and some important health care reforms. The money did not come from students. The money came from the subsidization we have been giving to banks. Specifically, thanks to the huge savings generated by eliminating wasteful subsidies to banks, what we were able to do with that--we provided increases in the maximum Pell grant award to keep up with inflation. We provided funding for minority-serving colleges and universities. We made a major investment in community colleges, creating a community college and career training grant program. We were able to make loan repayment more manageable by capping a new borrower's loan payment at 10 percent of their net income and, for some, forgiving any remaining debt after 20 years of payment. That was all done by stopping these wasteful subsidies to banks and putting it into the direct loan program. Again, we provided more than $10 billion in deficit reduction at the same time we were able to expand the Community Health Center Program to ensure access to lifesaving medications and to expand vital consumer protections to millions of Americans with private health insurance--protections we put in such as banning lifetime limits, requiring dependent coverage, prohibiting cancellation of coverage due to an illness. In other words, thanks to the education reform bill, students benefited, the middle class benefited, taxpayers benefited, and health care consumers benefited. For my friends on the Republican side, had they had their way and had those reforms been defeated, only the banks would have benefited. Indeed, I kind of detect a pattern. When we Democrats were fighting to end this subsidy to banks so we could dramatically increase college grants and loans for middle-class and disadvantaged students, my friends on the other side of the aisle stood with the banks and did everything they could to kill the reforms. Likewise, today Democrats are fighting to prevent a 100-percent student loan rate hike. We want to fully pay for it by correcting a provision in the Tax Code that allows a small group of wealthy Americans to avoid paying some Social Security and Medicare taxes. Republicans are going to the mat to prevent those wealthy taxpayers from having to pay their fair share. Instead, how do they want to pay for keeping the interest rate down? By gutting the prevention fund, killing it, eliminating it--the very fund that is investing in initiatives to fight cancer and heart disease and to protect the health of our children, our women, and our elderly. What they are proposing is bad public policy. It is bad priorities. We need to be putting the middle class first. We need to be putting students struggling to pay for college first. We need to be putting public health care and prevention first--put all those out there. To make these things possible, we should ask a small group of wealthy Americans to put their country first and stop abusing this provision, this loophole in the Tax Code. I urge my colleagues to support the Stop The Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act and to support the offset currently in the bill. Five years ago, the original law that reduced the student loan interest rate to 3.4 percent passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed by a Republican President. I hope we can find common ground to pass this new legislation with that same kind of broad and bipartisan support. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?