Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012--Motion to Proceed--Continued

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, we voted at noon today on whether we were going to start the debate on the student loan interest rate bill.

For those who are following it, the largest Federal loan to college students, the Stafford loan, has a current interest rate of 3.4 percent. That interest rate expires on July 1 and doubles to 6.8 percent, meaning any students taking out a loan after that date will pay twice as much in interest.

The practical impact of that is fairly clear: If you were to borrow $20,000 to go to college through a Federal Stafford loan and paid 3.4 percent on that $20,000, you would find that you were paying $4,000 less than you would pay if you were at 6.8 percent. So it adds roughly 20 percent to the cost of that student's loan over the life of repayment. That is a significant expense.

Most of us are aware, or should be, that students across America are going more deeply and deeply into debt to go to college. Average college indebtedness: $24,000. But an average does not tell the story because if you have one hand over a flame and one hand in a freezer, on average you have to feel just fine. But in this case, students are going much more deeply into debt than $24,000, and the interest rate on the loan is significant.

So it would seem this is a pushover. Who disagrees with this idea that lessening the burden on students in college is good for our country--because more students will seek higher education--good for the student--less of a burden when they graduate--good for their families--because many of them cosigned on these loans?

In fact, this is one of those rare issues where both President Obama and Governor Romney agree: Don't let the interest rate go up from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. So today we resumed the motion to proceed, which literally means, if adopted, we would begin debate on the student loan interest rate bill to keep it at 3.4 percent and not let it double July 1.

We heard from both sides of the aisle that everyone agreed we had to do this. It sounded pretty easy. Then the vote was called. At the end of the vote, not one single Republican Senator had voted to proceed to the debate on the bill--not one. One Senator, Ms. Snowe, voted present. Every other Republican Senator who was present voted no.

How did this become a partisan issue? We have President Obama and Governor Romney agreeing, most Americans agreeing we do not want the cost of student loans to go up, and it fell flat on its face on the Senate floor at noon today. Not a single Republican would vote for it.

I don't understand it. They say, well, we don't like the way you pay for it. It costs $6 billion to lower the interest rate that we would otherwise collect. We pay for it by changing the Tax Code, closing a tax loophole primarily used by accountants and attorneys under subchapter S corporations to avoid paying their regular income tax on their income. They get through this S corporation what are called income dividends and they don't pay the regular income tax rate or the withholding tax that ordinary income is subject to. I think closing that loophole is reasonable. It produces $6 billion and pays for the student loan interest rate to stay down. I can accept that.

Some on the Republican side say, no, that is a tax increase. They--many of them--have categorically said we will never, ever, never vote for a tax increase, no matter what it is. So they walked away from the student loan bill. They say they have a better way to do it. Senator Reid came to the floor and said, fine, we will call the bill and you can offer your way to do it. Pay for it a different way. Let's bring it up for debate. Let both sides debate it and let's vote on it, and then let's move forward. No, they would not accept that. They all voted against proceeding to the bill.

For anybody who is following what is going on here, this is what is known as a filibuster. The Senate is infamous for them now. We filibuster everything, even bills that are bipartisan, which everybody agrees on. No, we are going to drag this out hour after weary hour, eating up the time of the Senate, and people will be asking for a cable refund because nothing is happening on the C SPAN channel because they are watching a filibuster. Not much happens. Yes, Members such as I will come from time to time to give a speech and explain what is going on, but nothing substantive is going on. We are not considering the bill.

Sadly, what we are failing to do is going to affect a lot of innocent people; 7.4 million students will be affected if we don't change this interest rate--365,000 in my State of Illinois. These Stafford loans, Federal Government loans, are mainly directed toward families in lower income situations, so that students can borrow money to get through school.

Let me confess my conflict here. I would not be standing here today without government loans. I borrowed money from the Federal Government to go to college and to law school under the National Education Act and then paid it back; otherwise, I could not have gone to school; I couldn't have afforded it. These loans are needed across the board. We know it from personal experience.

In 2007 and 2008, 30 percent of all undergraduates took out federally subsidized Stafford loans--about 1 out of 3. The average was about $3,400 a loan 4 or 5 years ago. This year, it is up to 8 million students. As I mentioned, 365,000-plus borrowers in my State, and, as I mentioned, failure to reduce that interest rate will add to the cost of the loan they have to pay back. These borrowers, 7.4 million students, including 1.5 million African-American borrowers and over 986,000 Hispanic borrowers, will face this new penalty, this loan increase. It is clear to me that we should be spending time here dealing with this.

I learned it firsthand when I went home last week and visited campuses. In Chicago, I went to DePaul. Downstate, I went to Bradley University in Peoria. In Decatur, I went to Millikin University. In each place, students came forward to explain what they were facing in terms of student loans. I will enter into the Record the experiences they shared with me.

One of them was Amy. Amy goes to DePaul University in Chicago and is an art major. Her sister Michelle came to join us at the press conference. Here is Amy's situation. Amy comes from a working family who cannot help her pay, so she works and borrows to try to get through school. She is an art major. Her student loan indebtedness at the end of June will be, for 4 years, $80,000. But she says that a bachelor's in art is not good enough and thinks she needs a master's. She thinks it will be another $60,000 she needs to borrow. I said: That is $140,000, young lady, and you are 25 or 26 years old. She will be borrowing not only the government loan but way beyond that into private loans. The government loan is 3.4 percent. The private loans for students in school range from 8 to 18 percent--much like credit card debt, they are so expensive.

This young lady thinks she is doing the right thing. She was told go to school, get an education, and follow her dream. Her dream is at the end of a very long, expensive road and $140,000 in debt. Michelle, her sister, decided she wanted to be a teacher and teach grade school. She looked at the indebtedness she would have to incur and decided to move back home to Indiana and go to the local public college and try to get as many credits as she could at a low price, and perhaps finish at DePaul when it is time. She thought: If my debt is too much, I would not be able to teach or make enough money to pay my loan back. That is a real-life story of two sisters who are doing the right thing and are facing student loan debt.

How could we explain that we are going to raise the interest rate on either one of them? At this point paying back their student loans will make it virtually impossible for Amy, who could be $80,000 to $140,000 in debt, and how is Michelle going to be the teacher we want her to be?

At Bradley University in Peoria, a student named Rose told me that if the interest rate on her loans doubled, which will happen if the filibuster continues by the Republicans, she might have to move in with her parents after graduation or make sacrifices in order to make her loan payments. Rose estimates that increasing interest rates will cost about $4,000, because she plans on graduating with about $20,000 in debt.

I also met Deshawn from Alton, IL, a freshman majoring in economics and political science at Bradley. He wants to be an international lawyer some day. He is a first-generation college student, and he realizes that without student loans he doesn't have a chance to realize his dream.

What is the difference of opinion here about how to pay for these decreases in the interest rate from 6.8 to 3.4? As I mentioned, we would close the tax loophole on subchapter S corporations, which are used by accountants and attorneys to avoid paying the ordinary income tax and withholding.

There is another proposal out of the House that I think is really bad. They say we should pay for keeping student loans affordable by reducing preventive health care programs. We have a fund that we have created that pays for, among other things, preventive care, childhood immunizations. So if the money is taken out of that fund, fewer American children will be receiving the vaccines and the inoculations which we want for all of our kids to keep them safe. Is it important that kids receive these vaccinations? I think it is very important.

Senator Reid said at a press conference here that the incidence of a return of whooping cough--most people thought that was long gone--in the United States is at the highest level in 50 years, and the incidence of the return of measles in this country is at the highest level in 15 years. Childhood immunizations are important to keep our kids healthy and safe.

There is also money in this prevention fund, which the House Republicans want to cut out, calling it a slush fund, to be used for diabetes prevention. You cannot pick up a newspaper or a magazine without reading about the incidence of obesity, the growing number of overweight children, and the increasing incidence of diabetes among our children. In fact, forms of diabetes that used to be confined to adults in America are now being found in children in America. They have to be treated with pretty powerful drugs to overcome this disease of diabetes.

The House Republicans say let us reduce the amount of money we are using for public education and treatment to reduce the incidence of diabetes and instead spend it on student loans. What a Faustian bargain that is. It is a bargain with the devil. We are going to put at risk children when it comes to immunizations and diabetes, in order to help grown children, young adults, pay their student loans.

Is that what it has come to? We are so determined to not touch the Tax Code and the loopholes in it that we are going to risk the health of our children or the cost of a college education for our kids as well?

I think the approach in the House is not defensible. I hope that at the end of the day we can make sure we do this in a responsible way.

FOR-PROFIT SCHOOLS

Mr. President, I want to mention 2 other things quickly. One of the real problems with debt in this country relates to for-profit schools. Go to Yahoo or Google, put in ``college and university'' and step back. What is about to hit you is an avalanche of ads for for-profit schools. I don't need to recount the names on the floor. Everybody knows them. These are the schools that are advertising constantly: Come to our school. They run ads on television. One, I think, tells the story and shows a lovely young lady in a robe and pajamas, who has her laptop on her bed and says: You know, you can go to college in your pajamas now. I am going to XYZ for-profit school getting my college degree.

Here is what is happening: These for-profit schools are inundating the Internet and recruiting young people who otherwise might not go to college, many of them, and 10 percent--here are three numbers--of kids graduating from high school end up in these for-profit schools. So what the for-profit schools are looking for is young people who are in lower income family categories because they qualify for the most Federal assistance--Pell grants and Federal student loans. Ten percent of the students at the for-profit schools and 25 percent of all Federal aid for education goes to these schools--more than 2 1/2 times, based on the number of students, the amount you might imagine.

Hang on, it gets more challenging. Almost half of the student loan defaults in America come from for-profit schools. Why? The kids get too deeply in debt and end up dropping out because the debt is overwhelming or they finish and get a worthless diploma and cannot find a job. That is the story. So the student debt in traditional schools, public universities, private, not-for-profit universities, is one thing; on the for-profit side that debt is mounting, particularly through private student loans.

Here is the kicker, and you know this, Mr. President, because you studied this issue too. Student loans are the only private loans in America not dischargeable in bankruptcy. What it means is that you are carrying it for a lifetime. You will carry it until you pay. That young lady $140,000 in debt could not have a clue what she has done to the rest of her life by getting that deeply in debt. I have students contacting me with over $100,000 in debt for a 4-year education, and they find out the diploma is worthless. There is one school, Westwood College, which operates out of Denver, CO, and has a campus in Chicago. They are under investigation now by our State attorney general. Too many young people have been watching too many crime shows, and Westwood College knows it. They call them and say how would you like a bachelor's degree in law enforcement. Maybe they are watching ``Hawaii 5 0'' and ``CSI'' and they like that stuff. Good, come on out.

I will tell you a story of one student. She went to Westwood College and it took 5 years to get a bachelor's degree in law enforcement. She took that diploma to the police departments and sheriffs' departments around the Cook County area, and they said: That is not a real college. We don't recognize that as a real diploma.

There she was with a worthless diploma and in debt $80,000 for a student loan. Now she is living in her parents' basement. She can't borrow another nickel to go to a real college, and she owes, obviously, $80,000 and is struggling with two jobs to try to pay it off.

There is another part of the story that we should not ignore. Many of these schools, particularly the for-profit schools, realize that hooking the kids into this loan is not enough, so they have the parents cosign. Sometimes the grandparents cosign. Six weeks ago, the New York Times ran a story of a woman who had her Social Security check garnished because she owed on a student loan. It wasn't hers, it was her granddaughter's loan. She cosigned, and her granddaughter defaulted, and now the grandmother has her Social Security check being docked because she owes on the loan. This is a horrible situation.

It will be a worse situation if the interest rate on July 1 doubles.

So we have this Republican filibuster against bringing down the interest rate on student loans, and yet we now have an empty floor. Whoever thought it was a good idea for us not to debate and not to vote on this interest rate increase is long gone. They are not even here. I think that is the real unfairness of the filibuster. If a Senator or Senators stop the business of the Senate and say we can't even take up the bill or consider an amendment, then I think they owe it to the Senate to be here and explain their point of view.

I hope that tomorrow, when the dawn of a new day breaks and the Senate opens, some Republicans will come to the floor and explain this filibuster on college student loans. It is unfair to the students and to the families of our country. People definitely need a college education--many of them do--in order to succeed in life. Some need training. Even those who need skilled training may end up at a community college or taking a course that requires a loan to get through.

I hope the Republicans who started this filibuster, who said we cannot even take up, consider, or debate the student loan interest rate issue, will be here tomorrow to explain why, to explain why they think this is not worth the time of the Senate to debate. Until then, we will just languish in this filibuster.

THE DREAM ACT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was 11 years ago that I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. Just this last week, I was back in Chicago to attend a fundraising dinner for a group I really respect. It is called the Merit music program. About 20 years ago, when a lady passed away, she left a legacy to the Merit music program, and the legacy said that the money she was leaving and any money that was raised should go into the public schools of the city of Chicago to offer young people a free musical instrument and music lessons if they were interested.

This program has been an amazing success. It turns out it has created an avenue and opportunity many young people never dreamed of having, and some of them have talents that are incredible. I was there at their dinner last week when the violinists came in--kids from all over the public schools of Chicago--and they did a magnificent job. They feel so good about themselves. They develop a talent, and they have a 100-percent college placement rate from the Merit music program. There is a linkage there. I know the Senator from Colorado, who has taken over as our Presiding Officer, knows this, as he was an educator in the city of Denver. Many of these kids for the first time realize that they are worth something, that they can do something and do it well. And it is that confidence and pride that not only takes them through the experience of playing music but the experience of life and the experience of the classroom. It makes a big difference in their lives.

Eleven years ago I got a call from the director of the program, Duffy Adelson. Duffy was there last week. Duffy is a wonderful woman who has committed her life to the Merit music program. She said: I have an issue. One of the students at the Merit music program is an amazing young girl who plays concert piano. She has been accepted at major music schools, including the Manhattan school of Music in New York. She is Korean. Her mother, when she was filling out the application for the Manhattan school of Music, came to the box that said ``citizenship, nationality.''

The girl turned to her mother--her name is Teresa Lee--and said: USA, right?

Her mom said: No. You see, I brought you here when you were 2 years old on a visitor's visa and I never filed any papers. Your dad is a citizen, I am a citizen, and your brother and sister, who were born here, are citizens, but we don't know what your status is.

The daughter said: What are we going to do?

She said: We will call Durbin.

Well, first they called the Merit music program, and then Merit called me, and my staff found out that the law was clear. This young girl, who has spent 16 years in the United States, has to leave the United States for 10 years and then reapply to come back. She must leave for 10 years. That is the law. I thought to myself, the mom didn't file the papers. Mom did something wrong. Why would we not let this young woman do something right?

So when I was drafting the DREAM Act, I said: If you graduate high school and you have no serious problems when it comes to convictions or moral issues and you either complete service in the military or 2 years in college, we will put you on a path--a long path--toward becoming legal and becoming a citizen. That is the DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act has been here for 11 years. I have tried to pass it on the floor repeatedly. I can get 50-plus votes--I did the last time I called it--but the Senate has this magic number of 60, a supermajority. It has even passed the House of Representatives. But I have never been able to put 60 votes together here.

Over the years, the support from the other side of the aisle has been decreasing. As it decreases, it gets more difficult. Over the years, as well, a lot of people have stepped up and spoken on behalf of this DREAM Act. Colin Powell said: We would love to have these young people in our military. Secretaries of Defense, such as Secretary Gates, said the same thing. President Obama was a cosponsor of the bill. These are young talented people who can make a difference. But before I tell you the story of one of them here, I want to tell you the end of the story of Teresa Lee.

Teresa Lee attended the Manhattan school of Music and majored in concert piano. She met and married a young man who was an American citizen, and that made her legal in America. And she played at Carnegie Hall. How about that? Eleven years ago our government's law said she had to leave the country for 10 years. Instead, she came to the Manhattan School of Music, made it through, and has made a success of her life. There were a couple of people who stepped up and made sure that success was a reality in Chicago, and they were with the Merit music program. They had literally underwritten her college education because she couldn't qualify for any help--no Federal loans or grants, nothing--because she wasn't a citizen of the United States. This is a perfect example of a talent that would have been lost or wasted if she hadn't had good circumstances and if we don't have the DREAM Act for others who face the same thing.

Let me tell another story about Ayded Reyes. This is a photo of Ayded Reyes. She is a runner. I learned about her from an article on ESPN.com. Ayded was brought to the United States from Mexico when she was 2 years old. She

grew up in San Diego, CA. In high school, she was an honors student who played three sports and was an active volunteer in her community. Among other activities, Ayded volunteered at the Children's Hospital and Sherman Heights Community Center, where she tutored students and worked with the elderly. She was also a member of the National Honor Society and graduated from high school with a 3.98 grade point average. This Senator wishes he could have had an average like that.

Ayded was accepted at the University of California at San Diego, but she was unable to attend for financial reasons. Because she does not have legal status in the United States, Ayded is ineligible for Federal student loans or any other Federal aid. Instead, she attends Southwestern Community College, where she has flourished as a student athlete. She maintains a 3.50 grade point average, and her dream is to become an obstetrician. She has also become the top-ranked women's junior college cross-country runner in the State of California. Among other awards, she has been given Athlete of the Year at Southwestern College and Pacific Coast Athletic Conference Track and Field Athlete of the Year. Ayded has been offered athletic scholarships by more than a dozen top 4-year colleges, but she can't accept them because she is subject to deportation. She is not here legally.

I have spoken to other students who have similar challenges, whose dreams can't be fulfilled unless we give them a chance. Just recently, I heard about a student who didn't know which way to turn, didn't know if the DREAM Act would ever pass, and applied for a visa to take his college education and go to work in Canada. The Canadians welcomed him. We need talent like that in Canada, they said. So they took him and we deported him. Are we a better nation for that? Who got the best of that bargain? A person who was educated in the United States, succeeded in the United States, and dreamed of being an American citizen is now living in Canada. To me, that is not the kind of thing we need to see in our country.

As I said, just because the parents made the mistake, got something wrong, these young people should be given a chance to do something right.

I am going to continue to work on passing the DREAM Act, and I hope I can appeal across the aisle to Republicans as well. Why is this a partisan issue? Don't we all believe we shouldn't punish a young person for the crimes or sins of their adult parent? That is what is at work here. It is a basic question of justice. These young people, such as Ayded, grew up in America pledging allegiance to the flag, believing this was their home. All they want is a chance to make their home--the home of their dreams--a better place.

I hope my colleagues will take the time to meet some of the DREAMers. That is what they call themselves now. They have Web sites. They have stepped out into the light of day to introduce themselves to America. That is our only hope for this passing, where people come to meet these young people and realize what amazing people they are. I think they will understand that giving them a chance is only fair, it is totally American, and it is something we should do as soon as possible.

Mr. President, at this point I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source