Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as I indicated previously with respect to the amendment proposed by Senator Manchin, this proposal will provide short-term rate relief but lock in long-term rate pain for thousands of families and students across the country. It also represents the fundamental shift in our approach to student lending. It goes from investing in students and in our future economy to making those students be profit centers for the Federal Government. There is an estimated $184 billion over 10 years of profit in the current baseline. It is the difference between the cost of funding and the revenue paid by the students to the Federal Government. This proposal adds $715 million to that. Also, we have done nothing to address the $1 trillion of outstanding debt that students face today. This measure will add to that debt. Education has always been the engine of opportunity in this country. With this legislation, that engine will leave the station with many fewer students aboard. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. REED

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as you well know, since you worked awfully hard and very effectively with respect to the issue of student loans, we are about to rush into a complete restructuring of the way we price student loans. I believe this is not the appropriate approach. I think there are some fundamental issues with the student lending program that require a comprehensive approach. I have tried, along with many of my colleagues, to at least extend the 3.4 percent for a year so we can do this systematically and thoughtfully, do it in terms of not just interest rate structures but in terms of incentives to keep college costs down and also to deal with the increasingly difficult issue of the existing loan burdens that students have so they can refinance--not just in the future but families of students struggling today with a huge amount of student debt. Student debt has exceeded $1 trillion. It has surpassed credit card debt as the second largest household debt that we hold in the United States. In this context, I think we have to go forward and look at this comprehensively. The bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act is a product of great effort and very sincere effort to try to deal with this problem. But I do not think it will lead to a long-term stable solution that will benefit students. What I think it will do is shift the costs of these programs increasingly to students. This is not the way it used to be. The idea that government would generate revenue from student loan programs is a fairly recent one. From the first loan programs we established in the 1950s, the programs were designed as investments, something we paid for and we benefited from through increased productivity, through increased education of our citizens, and increased ability to compete worldwide. It was not designed to generate profits. It was not designed to break even. It was designed to invest in the future of the country through its young men and women. We invested in education because we understood educational opportunity was directly connected to our prosperity and our security. Indeed, it was the engine that was going to pull individuals up the ranks into the middle class and beyond, and it was going to pull the country forward with increasing prosperity and increasing national benefit. In response to Sputnik back in the 1950s we created the national defense student loan, what we now know as the Perkins loan, to expand the number of college graduates, especially in the fields of math, science, education, and engineering. Those are the very fields today where we see we need more people--math, science, engineering, and education. Today we call it STEM, a fancy term. Back then it was just math, science, engineering, and education. These were low-cost loans with very generous benefits. For instance, no interest accrued on the loans while students were in school, and teachers could get these loans forgiven. In the Higher Education Act of 1965, one of the principal architects was Senator Claiborne Pell, my predecessor. In that act, grants, work- study, and low-cost loans were the three pillars of student financial aid. We gave money to the students without requiring repayments with grants. We had very low cost loans relative to prevailing rates in the country, and then we had a work-study program. Providing more educational opportunity then was seen as a necessity, not a luxury, not something that would be nice to do. And we have all benefited from it. The productivity of this country today is a direct result of those investments that were made in the 1950s and 1960s. In fact, I suggest, with very rare exceptions, every person in this body benefited. I know I did. After West Point, which was funded by the government but required at least 5 years of service afterwards, I went to law school. I had to get a loan to help me get through, and I did. In fact, I would also daresay there is nobody in this Chamber today, with very few exceptions, who was without the access to and benefits of very generous student lending that persisted, that was part, that was a fixture of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s. This notion that we need to educate our young people is even more compelling today than it was in the 1960s and the 1970s. This is a chart, ``Jobs Requiring at Least Some College Education by 2018.'' In 1973, less than 30 percent of jobs required a college education. You could leave high school--if you had good work habits and good skills--and you could manage to make a living, buy a home, rise up through the ranks of managing production on the floor, and get into management if you were talented, ambitious, et cetera. Now, you see, by 2018 you are looking at over 60 percent of the jobs, nearly two-thirds, that will require some college. Here we were heavily subsidizing college education. Now we are proposing to say: No, students have to absorb the costs. Families have to absorb the cost. This cannot be a cost to the government in terms of our budget. That logic just doesn't seem compelling to me at all. We also know not only is college becoming more important in the sense of the jobs that need to be filled, but here is the other reality. This is the lifetime earnings. You can see there is a huge increase in lifetime earnings with education. As we make it more difficult to go to higher education, we are basically telling people they are not going to earn as much as they could. When we are wondering today about why there is so much inequality in this country, why wages are not going up, it comes back in large part to the fact that we need higher skilled workers, better educated citizens. As we impose more costs on students and families to go and get this master's degree or professional degree or doctorate degree or bachelor's degree, the market will tell us the higher the cost, the fewer people will do it. We are essentially telling those people they are locked in wherever they are. They are not going to be the ones who move from that humble abode to the middle-class home and beyond. That, I think, frankly, is one of the most disturbing aspects that people are facing all across this country, the realization and the fear that their children will not do better than they did. Our parents, all of them, I think, could say with great confidence: I am working hard, I am struggling, but I know my children will do better. One of the reasons our constituents across this country are saying we are not getting it right is this growing perception and feeling that, no, their children will not do better. By the way, this vote speaks volumes about our commitment to making sure the next generation of Americans does better. Just look at the numbers. This is how you get well compensated in the United States. Our country is based upon the notion that education is the engine that will pull you forward. That is the way we are going to deal with this notion of inequality of income. That is the American solution. Again, I think as we depart from this tradition we are going to find ourselves in an increasingly difficult situation. We are essentially asking in the proposal that is before us for low- and middle-income students to assume more of the cost of higher education--and their parents. Some can, but they will have less to invest in other things. Some cannot, and they will miss this train, literally. Even though in constant dollars the maximum Pell grant--we are still providing grants--is nearly where it was in terms of the 1970s, it is paying for a much lower percentage of the cost of higher education. I think that is an important point to note. This is not just about the level of Federal support. That is why I have urged us to stop and look at a comprehensive approach. What is happening--these are the Pell grants indicating how they went up dramatically in the 1970s and then tapered off and then finally, based upon President Obama's initiative, I believe, in 2009, they went up again based upon our changing from bank-based lending to a direct lending program. We shifted resources to the Pell grants. The Pell grants have been going up. What has also been going up is tuition. So when we are talking about the road to opportunity, when we are talking about dealing with this program comprehensively, just simply restructuring rates is not going to get it because this is what we are looking at: average tuition and fees at public and private universities. The green line is the 4-year private. That is shooting up out of sight. But we also know, and this might be anecdotal, those are the schools, the elite schools, if you will, that in many cases provide even an express road to opportunity for so many people. That is why they are so competitive to get into. Those costs are rocketing out of sight. But just the 4-year public colleges, which used to be the backbone of our whole country where with a modest fee you could get a great education, they are going up. We know from testimony that has been recorded here, a lot of it is because, as we are pulling back from supporting students and their families, guess what, States are doing the same thing. We had years and years of reduced budgets to our university system which have been reversed in only the last few years by the present Governor. We are pulling back. What happens as a result of that? Tuition goes up. When we look back to the mid-1970s, if a student got a Pell grant, that student could cover most of the cost of a 4-year education at a State school. Students cannot do that now. What does that mean? They have to borrow. Students have to borrow if they are in a situation where they are relatively low income, very low income, or of modest means. The consequence of this has resulted in an explosion of borrowing. This is the total FFEL--that is the old name for the lending program-- and DL, the direct lending program that is used today for Stafford loans. These are the loan amounts from 1966. At the bottom here, it is very small. It is off the chart. Through the 1970s, it was rather constant. It started to spike up here. Here is the curve. There is a little bit of a downward spike here, but that might be because people are dropping out. They cannot afford to borrow. I am hearing stories--and my colleagues are hearing stories--of people leaving school. They are saying: What is in it for me? I can't afford to graduate from college with a $25,000 or $50,000 debt and then get a job--or maybe not get a job--that is paying $35,000 a year. I will never get out of that hole. There has been an extraordinary explosion of lending. As lending has grown, there is more of a need to take steps to curtail the lending or to help students deal with this lending. There is over $1 trillion in outstanding Federal student loan debt that young people are going to have to somehow amortize and pay off through their lifetime. We have already had studies from the Federal Reserve and leading authorities who say this will delay home acquisition and all the things we thought would happen almost automatically or routinely in this country. A student goes to college, graduates, and then by their late twenties they have done enough in their job to buy a home, start a family, and become a pillar of the middle class. That hope and dream is receding. There is another aspect of this that gets into the whole accounting issue we have to deal with. CBO looked at these issues and scored them. They indicated that between 2013 and 2023--and that is over the next 10 years--we will generate about $184 billion worth of profit for the Federal Government. It is the difference between what the students are paying us back and what we are using to borrow. It is essentially the difference between our costs and their repayment to us. This is a remarkable shift from investing in students throughout all of these decades--post-World War II--to now essentially being able to generate income from students. Since 2007, we have been seeing a positive return to the Federal Government on student loans--even from loans made under the old bank- based system--because of the way the interest rates have run, because of our borrowing costs, and because of the costs students have to pay. Given the fact we are able to generate $184 billion over 10 years, I think we should be able to find our way through to a 3.4-percent rate for at least another year, but that has proven elusive in terms of the votes on the floor. I think all of this strongly suggests we have a major challenge to reconfigure our student lending system, our grant system, and our work- study system. We have a major challenge in lowering the cost of a college education. Rather than taking off like a rocket, the costs should be coming down. We cannot do that in a matter of 2 or 3 days. It is going to take some comprehensive and coherent work over many weeks and months. The problem we face in terms of looking forward and making changes is we have locked the interest rate at 6.8 percent under our budget rules. As a result, everything we do has to rotate around 6.8 percent. The proposals by my colleagues would lower interest rates in the first few years. However, in order to make up for the 6.8-percent assumption in the budget, it would have to raise interest rates in the out-years. For the first several years we are going to provide an increasingly expensive but starting relatively inexpensive--approach to student borrowing. But that has to be made up arithmetically by a higher cost for those succeeding generations. For example, if you are a senior in high school today, you will do reasonably well--not as well as 3.4 percent, but reasonably well. If you have a younger sibling who is in eighth or ninth grade, he or she will pay for you because those rates--just to make up the gap--will be much higher. We know it will be higher. I must commend the authors of the legislation who have at least put in a cap for the various lending programs. Originally, as this proposal made its way through the Senate, there were no caps, so rates could have soared to astronomical heights. Still, even with the caps, over the long term the succeeding generations of students--and this is a long-term proposal and not a proposal that has a finite period of time--will have rates that will go up and up and up. The key aspect that is driving all of this is the assumption that we should not be investing in higher education, as we have for decades, and that we have to have a budget-neutral solution. Rather than saying we can go ahead and do things, such as close tax loopholes, let's move that money into higher education, which I would argue would be beneficial for everyone in the short and long run. We have been locked into this budget-neutral approach, and there is a $715 million surplus, but it is as close to zero, as far as budget neutrality, as they could get. I go back to the point of revenue neutral, which means that given the present law of a fixed rate of 6.8 percent for undergraduate loans, 7.9 percent for other loans, we are going to enjoy it now and pay later. That is the essence of the proposal before us. Students could pay much more later. I also think the idea that we are going to fix this 2 years or 3 years hence is not reasonable because the cost of fixing it goes up with each year. If our principle and our presumption is that it always has to be revenue neutral, there might be some good ideas about fixing it, but where is the money? That is what is going to have to be included to fix it. I think we can do better. I will be offering an amendment with Senator Warren which will cap this proposal at 6.8 percent for student loans and 7.9 percent for the PLUS family loan--the parent loan--that will be comparable to what the fixed loan rates are today. This way we can at least tell all of our constituents: No student will be worse off--not just over 3 or 4 years--over the next 10 to 20 years, or however long this legislation endures. I think that is something that would be a useful improvement. We are paying for it by a surcharge for people who are making over $1 million. It is a very small surcharge. We should be able to say: We can find the resources to invest in the future of the country and to support and subsidize students so they can improve their skills, move into the middle class, and move the country forward. We have always done it. We can do it today. I urge my colleagues to favorably consider the amendment when it is proposed. Again, there have been extraordinary efforts on the part of many-- principled and thoughtful--to try to deal with this issue. I go back to my initial point: If we want to deal with it, we have to have time, and, frankly, we have to have resources. The way this is evolving, we don't have time and we are unwilling, it appears at this juncture, to commit significant resources to solve this problem in a comprehensive and coherent way that will benefit students and families and in the long run will benefit this country. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, over the last few weeks many of my colleagues have been engaged in a very serious, very deliberate, very thoughtful attempt to deal with the issue of student loan interest rates, which doubled July 1 for subsidized loans. They have contributed significantly in terms of trying to move this issue forward to reach a thoughtful and appropriate conclusion. From what I have heard, under their approach--the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013--I don't think, despite the good efforts and good intentions, that they have reached the objective, which is to make college affordable for all of our students and to somehow try to prevent this tidal wave of student financial debt, which is in some cases overwhelming to so many students and families across the country. Instead of emphasizing the students, I think what they have done is just tried to shield the government from investing in those students. The clear impact of the legislation that is being proposed is that it will increase the cost of education for students. We were in a position where we legislatively reduced the rate to 3.4 percent. We had an extension for 1 year to this July. It doubled to the previous rate in existing law of 6.8 percent. What this proposal does is to keep the rate relatively low at first-- although it goes up a bit higher than the 3.4 percent--but invariably, mathematically, it gets very high. They have placed some caps there-- and that is something for which I salute the authors, their efforts to put caps on the different programs--but those caps are very high also. The inevitability is that the one sure thing is that over the course of the next few years, students will pay more for higher education at a time when they can afford it less and less and at a time when we need more fully qualified graduates to take the jobs of this new century to be competitive internationally. I think we have before us, despite all these great efforts, legislation that will shift more and more costs to students. Instead of preventing the doubling of these rates to 6.8 percent, it would gradually raise these rates above 6.8 percent. We might see 1, 2, or 3 years of rates that are relatively below that number, but inevitably, mathematically, those rates will go beyond 6.8 percent, and the caps are rather high. High school students of today will be paying a lot more for their student loans, and their families will be paying a lot more. It will add to the debt of these students and their families. It will restrict their ability to become not only qualified workers in our economy but also the people who drive the economy, young people who buy homes, buy automobiles, and who are able, because of their skills, to earn enough to contribute not just to the productivity of the country but their own ability to make purchases and keep that engine of the economy moving forward. There is no real guess as to what level it would go up to because now we are moving away from fixed rates and moving toward an adjustable- rate. The rates have been pegged to a 10-year Treasury bill--a rate that we know is going up. It has gone up nearly 1 percent since just May, and in this environment it is likely to continue to go up. The rate students could pay could rise much more quickly than the projections even that CBO is suggesting. It could rise because of Federal Reserve policy. If they decide to unwind quantitative easing, and in such a way that rates shoot up, then those rates could spike very dramatically. Students and advocates have raised their voices loud and clear urging us not to take this kind of action. They have said that no deal is better than a bad deal. The people we are trying to help are actually saying: No, that is not the kind of help we need. With deep regret, I believe this is not the right approach going forward. What the students and advocates have asked us to do is to keep it at 3.4 percent. I have proposed legislation to do that for a year so that we could work on some of the fundamental issues that are driving costs, such as the incentives and disincentives in colleges for tuition; the issue of--which is separate but very important--how we not only provide reasonable interest rates but how we refinance all those students who are overwhelmed by debt, how they take advantage of the historically low rates of today. All of those difficult issues are being put off. I think they should be engaged, and I think we need the time to engage on those issues. Unlike the approach of at least another year of 3.4 percent, the proposal before us would lock in about $184 billion in student loan revenue. That is in the current CBO baseline. Then there is an additional $715 million that this proposal would generate. All of that is coming out of the pockets of students and families. Paying for college is tough. This legislation, unfortunately, could make it tougher because it would put in a permanent structure for setting student loan interest rates that could quickly result in students and parents paying more for student loans. This is not a temporary fix to get us to a better place in terms of incentives for tuition, in terms of refinancing, in terms of letting students more actively and more affordably pursue college education; this is the long term. It is simple math. In a zero budget environment--and that is one of the principles incorporated in this legislation--reducing what students pay today means that students will have to pay more tomorrow. If we are assuming a 6.8-percent fixed rate over 10 years and we lower that rate, as this legislation does, then just do the math--it is going to have to be higher to keep it zero or neutral with respect to the budget, and that is what is going to happen. So we are going to have some relief today, but it will be followed inevitably by students who will pay more and individually have a much larger burden to bear. I think we are in the position of taking steps that are going to make college more expensive at a time when we have to make it more affordable not only for individual families and students but for the future and success of our economy. We are also departing from our past experience with market-based interest rates in the Federal student loan programs. This proposal also locks in historically high surcharges on top of basing the loans on a higher cost instrument. Previously we were using the 91-day T-bill, and because it was a short-term note, the interest rates were lower relative to the 10-year note. Now we are using a much higher baseline, and then we are adding historically higher premiums to that baseline for graduate students and parents. So the legislation builds in additional costs that we haven't used even when we had rates that were based on market conditions. Under the market-based rates that were in effect from 1998 to 2006, students benefited from historically low interest rates. These rates were indexed, as I said, at the lower 91-day Treasury bill rate rather than the 10-year Treasury bill rate. As I mentioned before, we already know this 10-year Treasury bill rate is moving up. We are making these changes from the perspective of interest rates at exactly the wrong time--at the bottom of the interest rate curve as it starts its climb up. That argues, to me--and, frankly, I think most people, if they were going to make a choice on a loan today, would try to pick a fixed rate, even if it was a little higher than the introductory rate on a variable loan, because of the experience of the last several years and because of what they are seeing all around them--rising interest rates over time. This year, borrowers who are repaying these loans--I am talking about the loans that were made in that period of time, 1998 through 2006-- have an interest rate of 2.35 percent, and over the last 5 years their rate averaged 2.41 percent. They have benefited from the declining rate. They have benefited from the huge expansion of Federal Reserve quantitative easing. They have benefited from an economy that slowed down, ironically, so that interest rates were falling. Now we are on the other side of that curve, and students won't benefit from the market rates. They will actually see higher rates as we go forward. We offered these rates in the context of the old program where we had to also subsidize banks. Today, I would think, with the banks out of the picture and with the government, through direct lending, doing the lending, we should be able to find a solution where we can actually lock in much lower rates for students. This is the kind of solution that will take time--the time, I believe, that we could have spent and should spend by extending the 3.4 percent rate another year and looking creatively and thoughtfully at a whole spectrum of issues but with the goal of trying to give students and families the assurances that they can afford college and also that college will be affordable in the sense that the cost of college will start coming under some type of control. That takes a lot of work, and we are not doing that work today. Instead, under this proposal, we are adopting a rate structure permanently that, because of where we are in the economy, will invariably mean that students will pay more and more each year. I have mentioned before that because of the great effort of some of my colleagues--Senator Manchin, Senator King, Senator Alexander, Senator Burr, Senator Durbin, and Chairman Harkin, I could go on and on--there have been some improvements made in the initial version of this legislation, particularly caps on individual loan programs. Those caps are very high. Under the new proposal, the cap for the undergraduate loans is 8.25 percent, and then there are caps that go all the way up to 10.5 percent. Again, let's step back here. We are putting a cap at those levels because there is a reasonable expectation that we will reach those levels. As a result, we are going from the current law, which is 6.8 percent, to as high as--in some cases for parent loans--10.5 percent. This is a huge swing not in favor of the students but to their disadvantage. This is why I am working on an amendment, which I hope to offer, that would put the cap at 6.8 percent for all Stafford loans and at 7.9 percent for the parent PLUS loan. Again, if we are looking at a fixed rate of 6.8 percent and we can't do better than that 2, 3, 4, 5 years from now, we have to ask ourselves whether we really need to make these changes or whether we should make these changes. If we adopt the amendment I propose, at least we are telling parents they won't be worse off than current law and they will be better off-- because of interest rates at the moment--in the next several years. I hope we can do that. We are looking at Federal student loan debt that is over $1 trillion. This can only mathematically increase that debt. We should be investing in our students, giving them the benefit of relatively low-cost loans so they can go to school, get on with their lives, and get our economy moving again. This is also an issue that goes to one of the core issues we face as a country, and indeed it is a core issue across the globe--the growing inequality of income and, in a sense, opportunity in our country and countries across the globe. In the United States, the great engine for opportunity has always been education. If we make it more expensive, then fewer people can take advantage of it. If fewer people take advantage of it, the inequality will grow because they won't have the chance for the good- paying jobs. By the way, in a competitive global economy, we could see our position slip because we don't have these talented people. So this is an issue that strikes not only at the technical aspects of a program, this goes to the heart of what it is that gives opportunity to America, and I believe it is education. I believe that if we make it expensive, fewer opportunities will be available. If we make it expensive, we will be less productive and less competitive. I believe that despite the efforts of extraordinarily talented and dedicated colleagues, we can do better and we should do better. As such, I reluctantly oppose the underlying legislation. I would at least hope we could cap it if the amendment I offered would be accepted. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, to help mark the 375th anniversary of the settlement of Portsmouth, RI. Portsmouth is predominantly located on Aquidneck Island in Narragansett Bay, and also encompasses a number of smaller islands including Prudence, Hog, Patience, and Hope. It is the second oldest community in Rhode Island and is home to over 17,000 people. With over 50 miles of coastline, Portsmouth enjoys beautiful views of the surrounding bay and islands. Portsmouth has a long and rich history. In 1638, Roger Williams convinced religious dissenters from the Boston Colony to settle the area now known as Portsmouth. One of these dissenters, Anne Hutchinson, perhaps the most well-known of the founders of Portsmouth, rebelled against the Puritanical lifestyle in Massachusetts Bay, undergoing a rigorous trial before being banished and excommunicated from the Boston Church. Hutchinson founded the town of Portsmouth with fellow colonists who were also searching for religious freedom. Portsmouth is believed to be the first town in the New World that was established by a woman. The signing of the Portsmouth Compact in March of 1638 created the first true democracy in America. The town played a role in our Nation's fight for independence. The Battle of Rhode Island, which took place in 1778, was significant to the history of the Revolutionary War because it was the first joint operation of American and French forces and also was the only battle in which black Americans fought as their own unit as part of the First Rhode Island Regiment, alongside Native Americans. The site of the battle is designated as a National Historic Landmark by a plaque and monuments at Patriots Park. Portsmouth was also home to a general army hospital that treated thousands of wounded Union soldiers and Confederate prisoners during the Civil War. With its vast shoreline, Portsmouth's maritime legacy is historically noteworthy. It was the site of the Navy's first PT-boat training facility, the Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron Training Center in Melville, where President John F. Kennedy trained. Portsmouth is now fittingly the home of US Sailing, which is the governing body for the sport of sailing in the United States. As we celebrate the 375th anniversary of Portsmouth's settlement, I would like to recognize the residents of Portsmouth for all of their efforts to preserve one of our country's most treasured places. Like the town's motto for this anniversary celebration proclaims, Portsmouth has a proud heritage and a bright future. Congratulations to the Town of Portsmouth on its 375th anniversary.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation to provide support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Murray, Tom Udall, Durbin, and Whitehouse for agreeing to be original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2013. According to the National Association for Environmental Education, 47 states and the District of Columbia have taken steps towards developing plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society, as well as countless schools and teachers, are offering educational and outdoor experiences that many children may never otherwise have, helping inspire them to learn. In partnership with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan that is now being put into action. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, our bill seeks to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education. Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge, and remains out of reach for too many children. With many schools being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or in demand these programs are. The No Child Left Inside Act would increase environmental literacy among elementary and secondary students by encouraging and providing assistance to states for the development and implementation of environmental literacy plans and promoting professional development for teachers on how to integrate environmental literacy and field experiences into their instruction. The legislation would also support partnerships with high-need school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. Finally, the legislation would support interagency coordination and reporting on environmental education opportunities across the Federal Government. This legislation has broad support among national and State environmental and educational groups. The American public recognizes that the environment is a central issue to our future health and well-being. In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future. Environmental education helps prepare the next generation with the skills and knowledge necessary to be competitive in the global economy. Studies have shown that it enhances student achievement in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement and critical thinking skills. And it promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to get outside. That is why I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the bipartisan No Child Left Inside Act and to join with Senator Kirk and me to include its provisions into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation to provide support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Kirk, Murray, Tom Udall, Durbin, and Whitehouse for agreeing to be original cosponsors of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2013. According to the National Association for Environmental Education, 47 states and the District of Columbia have taken steps towards developing plans to integrate environmental literacy into their statewide educational initiatives. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society, as well as countless schools and teachers, are offering educational and outdoor experiences that many children may never otherwise have, helping inspire them to learn. In partnership with the Rhode Island Department of Education, these organizations have developed a statewide environmental literacy plan that is now being put into action. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, our bill seeks to prioritize teaching our young people about their natural world. For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education. Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge, and remains out of reach for too many children. With many schools being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs, fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or in demand these programs are. The No Child Left Inside Act would increase environmental literacy among elementary and secondary students by encouraging and providing assistance to states for the development and implementation of environmental literacy plans and promoting professional development for teachers on how to integrate environmental literacy and field experiences into their instruction. The legislation would also support partnerships with high-need school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for replication and dissemination of effective practices. Finally, the legislation would support interagency coordination and reporting on environmental education opportunities across the Federal Government. This legislation has broad support among national and State environmental and educational groups. The American public recognizes that the environment is a central issue to our future health and well-being. In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future. Environmental education helps prepare the next generation with the skills and knowledge necessary to be competitive in the global economy. Studies have shown that it enhances student achievement in science and other core subjects and increases student engagement and critical thinking skills. And it promotes healthy lifestyles by encouraging kids to get outside. That is why I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the bipartisan No Child Left Inside Act and to join with Senator Kirk and me to include its provisions into the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Engagement in Education Act with my colleagues Senator Coons and Senator Whitehouse. I thank Representative Thompson for introducing the House companion of this bipartisan bill. Our legislation will strengthen family engagement in education at the local, state, and national levels. It will empower parents by increasing school district resources dedicated to family engagement activities from one percent to 2 percent of the district's Title I allocation. It will also improve the quality of family engagement practices at the school level by requiring school districts to develop and implement standards-based policies and practices for family-school partnerships. It will build State and local capacity for effective family engagement in education by setting aside at least 0.3 percent of the State Title I allocation for statewide family engagement in education activities, such as establishing statewide family engagement centers to continue and enhance the work that had been supported through the Parent Information Resource Centers. For states with Title I-A allocations above $60 million, the State Educational agency will make grants to at least one local family engagement in education center to provide innovative programming and services, such as leadership training and family literacy, to local families and to remove barriers to family engagement, and to support State-level activities in the highest need areas of the State. Finally, at the national level, our legislation will require the Secretary of Education the convene practitioners, researchers, and other experts in the field of family engagement in education to develop recommended metrics for measuring the quality and outcomes of family engagement in a child's education. Research demonstrates that family engagement in a child's education increases student achievement, improves attendance, and reduces dropout rates. A study by Anne Seitsinger and Steven Brand at the University of Rhode Island's Center for School Improvement and Educational Policy found that students whose parents support their education through learning activities at home and discuss the importance of education perform better in school. Yet too often, family engagement is not built into our school improvement efforts in a systematic way. The Family Engagement in Education Act will promote meaningful family engagement policies and programs at the national, state, and local levels to ensure that all students are on track to be career and college-ready. This legislation builds on my successful efforts in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, to incorporate provisions throughout the law to strengthen and boost parental involvement. It is also in line with the administration's blueprint for the ESEA reauthorization, which calls for doubling the amount that school districts are required to set aside for parental involvement and encouraging states to use some of their Title I funding to support local family engagement centers in education. Developed with the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes organizations such as National PTA, United Way Worldwide, Harvard Family Research Project, and National Council of La Raza, and endorsed by hundreds of local, state, and national organizations, this legislation represents the broad consensus that we must do a better job of engaging families in all aspects of their children's education. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Family Engagement in Education Act, and to work for its inclusion in the forthcoming debate to reauthorize and renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Family Engagement in Education Act with my colleagues Senator Coons and Senator Whitehouse. I thank Representative Thompson for introducing the House companion of this bipartisan bill. Our legislation will strengthen family engagement in education at the local, state, and national levels. It will empower parents by increasing school district resources dedicated to family engagement activities from one percent to 2 percent of the district's Title I allocation. It will also improve the quality of family engagement practices at the school level by requiring school districts to develop and implement standards-based policies and practices for family-school partnerships. It will build State and local capacity for effective family engagement in education by setting aside at least 0.3 percent of the State Title I allocation for statewide family engagement in education activities, such as establishing statewide family engagement centers to continue and enhance the work that had been supported through the Parent Information Resource Centers. For states with Title I-A allocations above $60 million, the State Educational agency will make grants to at least one local family engagement in education center to provide innovative programming and services, such as leadership training and family literacy, to local families and to remove barriers to family engagement, and to support State-level activities in the highest need areas of the State. Finally, at the national level, our legislation will require the Secretary of Education the convene practitioners, researchers, and other experts in the field of family engagement in education to develop recommended metrics for measuring the quality and outcomes of family engagement in a child's education. Research demonstrates that family engagement in a child's education increases student achievement, improves attendance, and reduces dropout rates. A study by Anne Seitsinger and Steven Brand at the University of Rhode Island's Center for School Improvement and Educational Policy found that students whose parents support their education through learning activities at home and discuss the importance of education perform better in school. Yet too often, family engagement is not built into our school improvement efforts in a systematic way. The Family Engagement in Education Act will promote meaningful family engagement policies and programs at the national, state, and local levels to ensure that all students are on track to be career and college-ready. This legislation builds on my successful efforts in the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, to incorporate provisions throughout the law to strengthen and boost parental involvement. It is also in line with the administration's blueprint for the ESEA reauthorization, which calls for doubling the amount that school districts are required to set aside for parental involvement and encouraging states to use some of their Title I funding to support local family engagement centers in education. Developed with the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group, which includes organizations such as National PTA, United Way Worldwide, Harvard Family Research Project, and National Council of La Raza, and endorsed by hundreds of local, state, and national organizations, this legislation represents the broad consensus that we must do a better job of engaging families in all aspects of their children's education. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Family Engagement in Education Act, and to work for its inclusion in the forthcoming debate to reauthorize and renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 10, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 10, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Lessons Learned from the Boston Marathon Bombings: Preparing for and Responding to the Attack.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 10, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Diabetes Research: Reducing the Burden of Diabetes at All Ages and Stages.'' The Committee will meet in room G-50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beinnging at 2 p.m.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 10, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 10, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room SH-562 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 10, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Repealing the SGR and the Path Forward: A View from CMS.''

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 10, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will conduct a hearing entitled, ``Stopping Fraudulent Robocall Scams: Can More Be Done?''

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, let me commend Senator Stabenow, Senator Harkin, Senator Warren, Senator Franken, and Senator Hagan, particularly, who is the cosponsor of the legislation I have proposed. My proposal would keep the student loan interest rate for subsidized Stafford loans at 3.4 percent while we deal with a very complicated and complex set of issues. It is not just the rate structure; it is the issue of providing appropriate incentives to control the costs of higher education. It is also the issue of refinancing existing debt and prospective debt so that this huge wall of debt, the avalanche of debt affecting college graduates and professional school graduates today, can be addressed. I don't think we can do that--because these are complicated programs--off the cuff, as we are attempting to do today or as we have been over the last several days. It turns out that if we do not extend this rate for at least a year, but instead take up the so-called bipartisan proposal eventually rates will rise on students across the board. That is because the law now calls for a 6.8-percent rate for the Stafford subsidized and unsubsidized loans and 7.9 percent for PLUS loans--fixed rates--and in order to score this as a zero in terms of the Congressional Budget Office and deficit effects, we have to over that time make up all of that interest. The proponents of the alternate approach are suggesting we will go with a lower rate now, but that simply means mathematically we will have to have higher rates in the future. The question of when that future arrives is a function of the way interest rates will be moving in the overall economy, and every indication is those interest rates will start rising, and perhaps quickly. The Federal Reserve has already indicated they are beginning to pull back on their quantitative easing, which means rates are likely to go up. We have seen a significant rise in the 10-year T-bill rate. Since May, it has gone up almost a full percentage point. So we are in a rising rate environment, and the other side proposes moving from a fixed rate to a floating rate, without an effective cap. What we know is that--it might not be next year or the following year but relatively quickly--we could likely see and will likely see students paying higher than the 6.8-percent rate and, without a cap, it could be significantly higher. If we adopt the proposal suggested by my colleagues--and they have been working with great energy and great sincerity to try to come to a solution--I am afraid we are going to ultimately end up seeing students paying much more, and that is not what we should be about. We have a situation right now, even with the 3.4-percent rate that doubled to 6.8 percent on July 1, where the Federal Government is making about $50 billion this year, between the cost of funds and the repayments being made by students, so students have become profit centers for the Federal Government rather than, as I think the intention of the program was, that the Federal program was going to help students get through college so they can help us as productive workers in our economy. It is projected that these Federal student loan programs between now and 2023, over a 10-year period, will make $184 billion for the Federal Government, in terms of the difference between what students are paying back and the cost of borrowing from the government. So there is a lot we could do--but not in 24 hours--to redesign our program so students are not essentially being hammered with huge debts as we are benefiting profitably from those students. The CBO estimates that under this Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, between 2017 and 2023, students would pay an additional $37.8 billion more on their loans than they would under the current rate of 6.8 percent. This goes to my initial point. The first few years have been designed so interest rates will be lower than 6.8 percent. However, according to the CBO, between 2017 and 2023 they will be much higher--so if a person is a high school student right now, they are looking at paying a lot of money if they intend to go to college--about $37.8 billion more--because it all has to balance out to effectively generate as much revenue as a 6.8-percent interest rate, which is the current rate. Students know that. That is why they have come to us and said, Listen, thanks, but no thanks. This short-run discount of a few years in terms of the interest rate, we know we might get the benefit if we have already started or are just finishing college. We definitely know that our younger brothers and sisters in high school and another generation of Americans will be paying for it. So I don't think we should take that approach. I think what we have said is let's wait. We have a lot of work to do. We want to look at proposals that might actually align the real cost of Federal lending for a college education and the real charges we impose on students. Right now, my sense is what our colleagues have done in their bipartisan approach has been essentially to make sure the first few years look good--they are certainly less than 6.8 percent, close to 3.4 percent--but then they have to put in a rather arbitrary delta--an increase in costs--because at the end of the 10-year period they are going to have to make up all of the interest that would have been charged at 6.8 percent. I don't think that is the way to approach fundamental reform of college loans in this country. There is another point I think is important to make as well, which is we have always either had a fixed rate or an adjustable rate with a cap on each loan program--a cap on subsidized Stafford loans, unsubsidized Stafford loans, and on PLUS loans for families. Now, in the bipartisan proposal, they don't have a cap. There is some discussion that if students consolidate loans, they will get an 8.25-percent cap. But consolidation can only take place after a student is in repayment. And before a student is in repayment, all of that interest on the unsubsidized Stafford loans and the PLUS loans is accumulating and being capitalized into what the student owes. So when the student consolidates, they have a much bigger principal to pay off. There might be a cap of 8.25 percent, but it is a much bigger principal. By the way, the loan is extended over a longer period of time, so they also have to pay for that longer extension of time. That is not the cap we have had before in the context of these programs. It has been a cap on the individual loan, a cap on the subsidized loan and unsubsidized loan, and a cap on the PLUS loans. I think that is a major fault within the proposal we are seeing today. The other issue, which goes to the index, is that a 10-year T-bill interest rate has been chosen. Typically, we have chosen a 91-day T- bill, and the 91-day T-bill is cheaper, frankly. We start off with a much lower index, which lowers what the student has to pay, and then we add other costs to it, including the discount estimate of default, and all of those things come up with the final rate. But we are going to a 10-year T-bill rate, which means students will be paying more relative to a 91-day T-bill rate. Again, I don't think that is what we want to do. We want to take the time to try to address this whole set of issues, to do it in a thoughtful way, to understand that one of the big challenges we have is not just the issue of what rate but also how do we keep college costs in check. How do we provide the kind of education students need to be competitive in the workplace? How do we deal with the interaction between all of these different types of loans? How do we go ahead and--again, this might be one of the biggest challenges we face going forward--how do we somehow allow these students who are drowning in debt to effectively refinance these loans so they can buy homes, they can buy cars, they can participate in the economy? That is not included in this proposal. Indeed, one of my concerns is with these rates locked in--and this is long-term legislation--we won't have the proper incentive to effectively deal with these issues; we will just let them slide along. I think that would be to our great detriment and, more importantly, to the detriment of families throughout the country. There have been--and appropriately so--comments and criticism of this short-term approach. We should have fixed it last year. Well, we haven't fixed it, and I think we have to give ourselves the time to fix it. There is the suggestion that we are dealing with a portion of the loans--the subsidized Stafford loans--and everybody else won't get a benefit. From the numbers we have seen from CBO, one thing is certain: In the last years of the other side's proposal, from at least 2017 to 2023, everyone--subsidized, unsubsidized, and PLUS loans--will be paying more. So the one conclusion we can draw, if we go to the alternative approach, is that eventually every borrower will be paying more. Therefore, I very strongly urge that we move forward with this cloture vote to get on to the legislation. As Senator Harkin rightly pointed out, once we are on the legislation, it is open to amendment. At least we can debate the proposals from all of my colleagues that could improve or change or modify the underlying bill. But if we don't get to cloture, then we are not moving forward, and I think we should at least move forward. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, we are about to take this vote. It is vitally important. The proposal is very straightforward, to extend the interest rate for subsidized Stafford loans at 3.4 percent. It is fully paid for. It will allow us to work through a very complicated set of issues. It will allow us to avoid raising rates this year and work toward a proposal we hope will avoid rising rates in the future. The alternative proposal eventually raises rates on every student, not immediately, but CBO indicates by at least 2017 the rates will be up. This is on top of a huge cascade of student debt we have to deal with. In fact, one of the major issues we should deal with is how do we refinance the existing loans that are at high rates. Refinancing will be even more important if we were to enact the rising rates coming from the proposals on the other side. I urge all of my colleagues to support cloture and move forward to debate this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I wish to thank the Senator from Utah for graciously allowing me to proceed. While the Republicans failed to join us in an effort to avert the doubling of the interest rate on need-based student loans, there is still time to act to make things right for students. On July 1, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Instead of allowing us to take up a vote on an extension of the lower rate, the other side continues to push a so-called long- term solution that would saddle students with even more debt in the future. Students and advocates from across the country have been very clear. On June 21, they wrote to Senate leadership, and in their words: ``A bad deal that is permanent for student borrowers is worse than no deal at all.'' We need time to work together to develop a good deal for students-- one that is comprehensive, one that touches not on just rates but on incentives to lower the costs of a college education and on ways in which students can refinance their existing debt and their future debts. As we all understand, we have reached a point where student debt has exceeded credit card debt. It is the second largest household debt--$1 trillion--and it is saddling this generation and future generations with burdens they well might not be able to discharge. In the meantime, at this moment, we should take up and pass the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act which I have offered, along with Senator Hagan and 41 of our colleagues, to ensure that students with the greatest financial need do not see the interest rate on their loans double. Again, at the heart of our student lending program has been a special concern to allow young men and women with talent from low and moderate incomes to go to college. That is why we created the subsidized Stafford loan program. That is what we have to keep our focus and emphasis on today. Forty-nine organizations representing students, educators, colleges and universities, and workers from across the country have asked us to do this. These are the students, the universities, and the people who have most at stake and they are telling us, again, that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. We should take a step back and remember why we offer student loans in the first place. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Higher Education Act into law in 1965, he said: ``And it is a truism education is no longer a luxury. Education in this day and age is a necessity.'' His words are truer today than they were in 1965. According to Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, we will fall 5 million short of the workers with postsecondary credentials we will need by 2020. We already know there is going to be a gap between the workers we need with advanced degrees and the jobs available by 2020. Nearly two- thirds of new jobs will require a college degree or similar credential. So by saddling this generation with additional costs and thereby inhibiting those who may well have the talent but not the resources to go to college, we are going to create an even bigger divergence between the demand for skilled workers and the talent Americans need to develop to fill those jobs. President Johnson again referred to the Higher Education Act as a promise the Nation was making to its young people for generations to come. The promise was that this Nation was not going to allow financial barriers to keep willing and able young people from a college education. But, today, that promise is at risk. As I have indicated, the job market increasingly demands postsecondary education simply to achieve middle-class earnings. At the same time, college is getting more and more expensive. As I said also, student loan debt is accelerating, second only to mortgage debt for American households. This is going to have a huge impact on the overall economy of this country. It is not going to be just individual students and families struggling. The Federal Reserve of New York and others have reported that this debt is dragging down our economy especially for young families as they try to establish themselves. The primary tools in the Higher Education Act to help students pay for college are grants, work study, and low-cost loans. The Pell grant, which I must say we are so proud of because it was authored and championed by our great Senator Claiborne Pell, is less and less able to fund a college education. In the 1970s, it covered a large part of tuition and fees for a year in college. Today, the percentage of costs it covers is shrinking, even as we try to expand it. As a result, more and more students have had to rely on loans, and that is why we have seen this huge explosion of debt. Today, instead of aiding students with low-cost loans, the Federal Government, ironically, is reaping profits from these students. We have to change this. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that between now and 2023, student loans will generate $184 billion in revenue for the Federal Government. At a time when students are struggling and when they are seeing their debt explode, we are making money off of them--not investing in them but putting them under a huge financial burden. As we seek to solve these complex problems, I think the most sensible and the wisest thing to do is to keep the subsidized loan rate at 3.4 percent and use the year to engage and successfully complete the complex task of looking at several different aspects of this problem. However, we are blocked from doing so because our budget rules basically require us to replace the revenue and the other side has been unwilling to consider revenue from other sources. We propose to offset the cost by closing a tax loophole. We have to look carefully not only at what we will do to make the student loan programs cheaper and more effective for students but also how we will pay for it. We also have to recognize that for many years our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have targeted some of these subsidized loans, wanting to make them more expensive. From the Contract With America in the 1990s to the Ryan budgets, they have suggested things such as, for example, eliminating the in-school interest subsidy on student loans. For subsidized student loans, we pay the interest while the student is in college pursuing their educational goals, and they have suggested eliminating that. These are some of the reasons why I think we have to be skeptical of proposals that are being advanced in order to provide relief for students. The so-called Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act would add nearly $1 billion in additional revenues from student loans to the government coffers. It may be a short-term fix, but it creates a much larger long- term problem: The teaser rates in the first few years mask the uncapped rates students would face in the following decades. This chart is very revealing. This demonstrates the undergraduate Stafford loan interest rates under the so-called Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act. This green line is the graduate Stafford loan, and this is the PLUS loan for parents. As we can see, they accelerate dramatically because of the 10-year Treasury bill rate chosen by supporters of the other proposal and because of the likely increase in that rate. It reaches the point here where interest rates exceed current law in 2016. So by 2016, these loans will be much more expensive. This is a classic case of enjoying 2 or 3 years of low interest, but having to be prepared to pay a lot more for education in the future. It is eerily reminiscent of those proposals to refinance one's house with an adjustable rate uncapped mortgage and get rid of that old-fashioned fixed rate which was so prevalent in the first decade of the 2000s and which caused so much havoc, and still is causing so much havoc. CBO estimates that if we look from 2017 to 2023 alone, students will pay $37.8 billion more under the so-called Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act. Students are smart. They can figure it out. But I think there is something else we have to add to the mix. This chart shows an estimate of the rates that was made a few weeks ago on the previous chart. Here is the change in the daily yield for the 10-year T-note. This is the benchmark rate. We can see where it begins on May 1 of 2013. It is going from about 1.6 percent all the way up to about 2.6 percent. This rate is rising dramatically. Why? Well, for one reason, the Federal Reserve has indicated they are going to begin to taper off their quantitative easing program. One reason is as we see signs of growth in the economy, interest rates will rise naturally. So what we could find is that this chart actually underestimates the potential growth in interest rates and students could end up paying maybe much more. In the Republican proposal, there is no cap on these rates. They talk about the fact that there is a consolidation process, but that consolidation process can only be entered into after a student has gone through school, begun repayment, accumulated interest at increasing rates each year, and then, indeed, when a student goes into the consolidation phase, all of the interest is capitalized and the loan is stretched out over many years, meaning they end up paying more. So it is not a rate cap at all. Frankly, without a rate cap, I think we are exposing students and their families to vast uncertainty. In fact, the only thing that seems to be certain is these rates are going up. We have to approach this problem in a thoughtful way. That is why I introduced the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act with Senator Durbin. It is a long-term proposal. It would base student loan interest rates on the actual cost of running the student loan programs--not on arbitrary rate but the actual cost to the government--and it will protect students by capping interest rates on each of the individual loan programs. Our proposal would, in effect, pass on the savings to students that the Federal Government accrues from the low cost of borrowing relative to other borrowers, our ability to absorb risk relative to others, and the economies of scale for loan servicing for students across this country. Additionally, by increasing in this legislation the loan limits on subsidized loans, we will allow students of low and moderate income to receive more help and not require them to borrow unsubsidized loans at higher interest rates and, as a result, I think, help bring down the whole cascading issue of student debt. Finally, our legislation would provide relief to students with outstanding loans--that is upwards of $1 trillion nationally--by allowing them to refinance to a lower interest rate. These are some of the key elements for a true long-term solution. We also need to address the cost of college, which is going up astronomically. The institutions have to have a lot more at stake. They have to be very careful that they are not only selecting well-qualified students, but also that they are preparing them for the workforce of this century and that they can have certainty, and the students can have certainty, that the skills they master in college will be rewarded with a job in our economy. Finally, we have to establish a true Federal-State partnership. Federal grants and loans can't keep pace with these rising college costs. We have to work with every level of government to try to address these issues. What I would suggest is that we work together. First, we extend the 3.4-percent interest rate, then, consciously, deliberately, and expeditiously, I hope, move forward to fix these complex issues, protect our students, allow education to be once again the engine that moves the country ahead, and allow every American, regardless of their wealth, to get aboard that train and go forward. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each and that Senator Hatch be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Utah be recognized.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Fischer, Menendez, Casey, Klobuchar and Franken in the introduction of the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Reauthorization Act. This legislation is an extension of ongoing bipartisan efforts in the Senate over the past decade to hopefully one day cure cancers in children, adolescents, and young adults. I first started working on this issue after meeting the Haight family from Warwick, Rhode Island in June of 2004. Nancy and Vincent lost their son, Ben, when he was just 9 years old to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive tumor in the brain. With the strong support of families like the Haights for increased research into the causes of childhood cancers and improved treatment options, I introduced legislation that eventually was signed into law in 2008 as the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act. Since then, I have worked to secure funding for these efforts, including $6 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to improve the ability of state cancer registries to rapidly collect information on the diagnosis and treatment information of children with cancer, and $1 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to help educate families about treatment options and follow-up care. Then, last year, I met Grace. Grace, from Providence, RI, is now 10 years old and is a survivor of medulloblastoma, another type of tumor that forms in the brain. Grace and her family reminded me that we must do more to ensure biomedical advances can continue so that better treatments will become available. With Ben and Grace, and their families, in mind, I have been working to update the original Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act. As such, the reauthorization we are introducing today would help create a comprehensive children's cancer biorepository for researchers to use in searching for biospecimens to study, would improve surveillance of childhood cancer cases, and would require a study of ways to encourage the development of novel treatments. I am also pleased to be reintroducing the Pediatric, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Act. Through increased research and advances in medical innovation, the population of survivors of childhood cancer has grown from just four percent surviving more than five years in 1960 to nearly eighty percent today. Unfortunately, even after beating cancer, as many as \2/3\ of survivors suffer from late effects of their disease or treatment, including second cancers and organ damage. This legislation would enhance research on the late effects of childhood cancers, improve collaboration among providers so that doctors are better able to care for this population as they age, and establish a new pilot program to begin to explore models of care for childhood cancer survivors. We must do more to ensure that children survive cancer and any late effects so they can live a long, healthy, and productive life. I look forward to working with Senator Fischer, and our colleagues, to see these bills enacted.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, July 1 is less than 1 week away. We need to reassure students who will be taking out loans for school this fall that their interest rates will not double. It is safe to say most of us on both sides of the aisle would want to see a long-term approach to setting student loan interest rates rather than a temporary extension of the current rate. We have been working, Senator Harkin, Senator King, Senator Manchin, Senator Burr, Senator Coburn, Senator Warren, and many others about finding a way forward. Unfortunately, all of the proposals that are on the table today would leave students worse off in the future, frankly, worse off than simply allowing the interest rate to double. There is a year or two, perhaps, where interest rates would stay below the rate of 6.8 percent. Then looking at rate trends, it looks quite convincing that these rates would surpass the current fixed rate and go higher. We can not enact a long-term solution that is going to be bad for students. In fact, student groups and advocates have urged us to reject the so-called deals that are circling around with variable rates that are not capped that could lead to very high interest rates for students in a very short period of time. One thing we have all been aware of for the last week or two is the dramatic movement of rates based on comments by the Federal Reserve with respect to their elimination of the quantitative easing program. The future looks as though we are going to see increased rates. If we let them rise on students without any type of cap, I think we are going to, in a very short period of time, regret that we didn't take more time--be more thorough, and look at not just issues of rate structure but also incentives to keep costs down in college, and at refinancing options, because it is a staggering debt load already on students. We haven't done any of this. As a result, today, I introduce, along with many of my colleagues, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. I wish to thank Senators Hagan, Franken, Warren, Harkin, Stabenow, Boxer, and many other colleagues. This legislation will simply extend the current rate at 3.4 percent, the rate we have today for need-based loans. These are the subsidized loans that go to low- and moderate income students. It would extend them for 1 more year so we do have the time, and let's say we should and must take the time to thoughtfully develop a long-term approach to the student loan program. It is not just coincidental that we must reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress. We can use this time properly to ensure that we do, in fact, have a comprehensive solution that will make students better off, not just in the next several months but in the long run. Instead of charging low and moderate income students more for their student loans, our legislation would extend the 3.4-percent interest rate by closing a loophole in the tax laws, which allows fairly wealthy individuals to defer taxes on their IRA or 401(K) type accounts. This provision would save taxpayers $4.6 billion over 10 years, which will more than cover the cost of extending the rate on subsidized student loans. We are moving forward on a basis where we are not increasing the deficit. What we are doing is giving students another chance to maintain an appropriate loan level at 3.4 percent for an additional year. We have to take action to stop the interest rates from doubling. Student loan debt is the next big financial crisis facing this country. We already understand from analysts that people in their twenties are putting off home purchases, automobile purchases, and are not doing what their parents' generation did because they have so much debt. They cannot move into the economy as their parents did. It is the second most outstanding household debt behind mortgage debt in the country. It surpassed credit card debt. It is affecting the trajectory of young people's lives. Again, my generation thought by their late twenties they would own a home, in fact, perhaps moving on, fixing up, and looking at second homes. This has all changed. Today students are caught between a rock and a hard place as they have all this debt they must carry forward. The other thing that is so interesting is we are scrambling around here trying to figure out ways to deal with this issue. It turns out, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has projected the loan program is actually generating revenue more than $50 billion this year and over $180 billion between now and 2023. We are actually making money on these loans. Frankly, if we don't look at the program and fix it, the irony will be students will pay more and the government will take in profits. In the long run, I think we will be worse for it because we will be depriving a whole generation of the kind of education opportunity they need. I think we have to do more. I introduced a long-term solution in April, the Responsible Student Loan Solutions Act, which will set student loans based on the actual cost of financing and administering the program. It will also protect students with a cap. I think that is essential. We have to understand the interest rates might rise to a point where we need to cap them to protect students. It would also allow refinancing, which is something that has not been seriously discussed. We frankly need more time to discuss that. We need the time; let's take the time. I urge my colleagues to join me. Let's take up and pass the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. Give students the chance to go to school this fall with a 3.4 percent subsidized interest rate. Give us not only the chance but give us the incentives and give us the marching orders to fix this problem comprehensively. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am prepared to make a request for consent. I believe the Republican leader will respond, and at the conclusion of his response I wish to be recognized to make additional comments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1238, the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act, the text of which is at the desk, the bill be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.