Volume 159, No. 96 covering the 1st Session of the 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“KEEP STUDENT LOANS AFFORDABLE ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S5522-S5524 on July 8, 2013.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
KEEP STUDENT LOANS AFFORDABLE ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding a motion to proceed to S. 1238 is now pending; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar No. 124, S. 1238, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the current reduced interest rate for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans for 1 year, to modify required distribution rules for pension plans, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, Kirsten E. Gillibrand,
Patrick J. Leahy, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Udall, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Ron Wyden, Benjamin L. Cardin, Richard
Blumenthal, Christopher A. Coons, Sherrod Brown, Robert
P. Casey Jr., Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Richard J.
Durbin, Debbie Stabenow.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as I understand it, the majority leader has just filed cloture on a bill that would keep us at a 3.4-percent student loan rate for Stafford loans, which impact about 7 million Americans, for a year. Am I correct on that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion is on the motion to proceed.
Mrs. BOXER. That is a very important cloture motion. I hope we will move forward on this bill in a bipartisan way. As of now, student loan rates have doubled on Stafford loans. In my State of California, 550,000 Californians are facing a doubling of their student loans, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. I have asked my students to contact me and talk to me about their real-world stories and what it means to them to see a doubling of their student loan interest rate.
I will tell you they are more eloquent than I could ever be. They talk about how they look at their dreams and maybe they will become fantasy dreams. They talk about what it would be to believe you are in a ball and chain of student loan debt that is so large it overwhelms you.
In the name of those students and all the students across the country, I hope the majority leader's move to resolve this for at least a year and keep those loans at 3.4 percent--I hope that motion to proceed will go forward and that the bill itself will pass.
What are the alternatives? Every alternative I have heard from the Republicans leads to higher interest rates with no cap. I don't know if you remember the years that interest rates rose after a period of low rates, and they went up to 7, 8, 9, 10, double digits--12 percent. I remember those days. It is hard for our people to remember that, but those were crushing interest rates.
If we do not have a cap on student loan interest rates, we are facing a real problem in the future, a problem that is going to impact the quality of life of our families. We are already seeing the Fed put out statements saying the crush of the burden of student loans without these high interest rates is having an impact on our economic recovery. I have read stories of young people who were putting off marriage and having families because of the crush of student loan debt.
I am very pleased we are moving forward on this commonsense proposal to keep these rates at 3.4 percent. We offset the costs by closing tax loopholes that hardly affect anybody at all. It has to do with inheritance on a 401(k), and it will pay for this proposal.
I am very supportive of the immigration bill, but at the last minute my Republican friends came forward with an enormous proposal to build an even bigger fence and wider fence and stronger fence. I guess the song ``Don't Fence Me In''--it is an old song--doesn't apply anymore. We are going to be fenced in. The cost of that is $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion. Surely we can find $4 billion for a year to make sure our students do not have to face a doubling of these rates.
McCarthy Nomination
I also come to the floor to speak about Gina McCarthy. For those people who have not followed this debate, Gina McCarthy has been nominated by President Obama to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. To me she is the poster child of bipartisanship and one of the best qualified candidates I have ever seen for this position.
She is experienced; she is smart; she understands the law; she understands energy; she understands everything she has to understand to undertake this job; she understands court decisions; she understands the health impacts of dirty air; she also understands that without a clean environment and a healthy environment we cannot have economic growth.
I often retell the story that when the walls came down in Eastern Europe, the air was so thick you could not even see the people. One of the first things they did is ask us how to clean up their air. We have made great strides, and we will continue to do that.
Yes, we have to face carbon pollution and the President is taking a stand to say he wants to preserve this planet and he is going to follow the signs. Some people have said: We do not like that. Therefore, maybe we should not vote for Gina McCarthy.
Can I just say this? The President has his policies, and you do not have to agree with them--or you can. I do. If you do not, that is fair. That is fine. But somebody has to run the Environmental Protection Agency. If you have a problem with those policies, you are going to have to go to someone who is intelligent and wise and bipartisan in nature to talk to, and Gina McCarthy is one of those people.
This is the second time Gina McCarthy has been nominated for a top position at the EPA. She was confirmed by the Senate for her current position, which is the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, without one ``no'' vote. Let me reiterate that. No one stood up and said no. Everyone supported her.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out her nomination on May 16. It is July. This is the longest period that EPA has ever gone without an Administrator, and the full Senate should confirm this nominee as soon as possible.
When I say Gina McCarthy is the poster child for bipartisanship, I mean what I say. She has over three decades of public service at the local, State, and Federal levels. She has demonstrated a record of working with Republicans and Democrats. Let me just run through the Republicans: The Republican Governor of Connecticut Jodi Rell, four Republican Governors of Massachusetts, William Weld, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, and Mitt Romney; and then a Democratic President, Barack Obama.
Let's look at what former Republican Governor Jane Swift said about Gina McCarthy in an opinion piece that ran in the Boston Globe. Remember, this is a former Republican Governor. She said:
Gina McCarthy . . . would bring competence, fairness and bipartisanship to Washington. . . .
And:
McCarthy's track record of accomplishment and her collaborative, pragmatic approach to policymaking are the reason she enjoys such [strong] support.
This former Republican Governor goes on to say:
[T]he Senate has an immediate opportunity to strike a blow for good government and bureaucratic competence by swiftly approving McCarthy's nomination.
The title of Governor Swift's article in support of Gina reads, ``A qualified nominee for the EPA.'' This was written on May 23, 2013.
Christine Todd Whitman--we all know her, she was the former EPA Administrator, a Republican--called for a fair confirmation process.
You can look at 59 businesses, health officials, environmental organizations, scientists--they all support Gina McCarthy. For example, Dr. Georges Benjamin, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, said:
Ms. McCarthy has been a true champion for public health and has consistently demonstrated her leadership in developing sensible safeguards to protect the public's health from pollution. . . . [She] is well respected by both the public health community and industry and has a solid record of working across the aisle with Democrats and Republicans. . .
.
That is a very strong statement. Then there is Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Here is an EPA Administrator nominee getting the support of the vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. That is a rarity. This is what she said:
She's a pragmatic policymaker. She has aspirational environmental goals, but she accepts real-world economics.
That is why this nominee should be embraced by everyone. Yes, she has aspirational environmental goals for her grandchildren--someday when she has them--she wants them to breathe clean air and so on, drink clean water, but she understands the pragmatics that go into making policy. I believe Gina will lead the EPA to transparency, she will follow the science and the law, and, yes, she will be straight from the shoulder and she will tell Republicans and Democrats alike how she sees the issue; when we do not agree, how we can reach agreement. By the way, Gina has answered more than 1,000 questions from Republicans on the EPW employment.
The EPA has provided extensive information to Members of the Senate in connection with this nomination. This is the longest the EPA has gone without an Administrator. How is this the right thing to do? This is the United States of America. This President deserves to have his people in place the same as a Republican President.
Gina McCarthy has a deep understanding that the health and safety of the American people and a growing economy go hand in hand. She will lead the EPA in a manner consistent with her past track record of success.
From my perspective, approving Gina McCarthy to head the EPA is a very important step toward helping the health of our children as well as future generations, and that is our most sacred obligation. We need her strong bipartisan approach to lead the EPA.
It is no great secret that in this last election both parties were fighting for the votes of women. It was a knockdown, drag-out battle. The Democrats won the women's vote, which helped to elect President Obama--by a lot. The Republicans said: You know what, we have to change, we have to reach out. This is their chance.
This woman deserves a promotion. There is nothing in her record that should make anyone fear her. She is a good woman and a hard-working person. She has won unanimous support from this body before, and there is no reason why we should not confirm her.
I am going to continue to speak out for Gina. I really do believe my colleagues are hearing the truth about Gina. I think they are getting the message that she is quite bipartisan. She has strong support in the business community as well as among scientists and others in the health community.
I am very hopeful, first of all, that there will not be a filibuster. This woman deserves an up-or-down vote. Secondly, my colleagues will think long and hard, and they will agree with so many Republican lawmakers and former Governors who served with Gina and will stand up and say: She is a good woman and deserves this promotion.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from California Senator Boxer for her very eloquent and powerful words on behalf of my client and friend Gina McCarthy and her appointment as Administrator of the EPA. I don't make any pretense of matching the persuasiveness of her statement on behalf of Gina McCarthy, but I am going to be speaking throughout this week and for as long as it takes about Gina McCarthy because she is not only a client and friend, she is a consummate public servant and environmental protector.
I have known Gina McCarthy for many years. In fact, I was her lawyer, which is why I say she was a client. As her lawyer, as attorney general of the State, she became a friend, not just because of her personal qualities of integrity and intelligence but because of her professionalism as an environmental protector who has sought always to recognize the need for a balance between environmental activism and economic growth. She recognizes a balance involving ardent and passionate protection of environmental values as much as anyone could possibly bring to this task. She also brings a willingness to listen, a willingness to hear all sides and consider all facts and, in fact, act as a passionate fact finder and lawyer as well as someone who respects the letter and spirit of the law.
I wish to speak to my colleagues about her respect for the law. It isn't just the letter of the law she follows; it is the spirit and intent of the legislature. I think that is important and should be important to this body because she has reflected throughout her career, working for two Republican Governors in Massachusetts and Connecticut, her dedication to public interests and to the legislative intent of the laws she fulfills.
She is truly an environmental protector for all seasons. She is a woman for all seasons and a public servant for all seasons. Over the years we worked together she was consistently tough, fair, and smart as an environmental law enforcer. She recognized the need to balance environmental activism with economic growth, and she also understood that the two are almost always mutually supportive.
I am proud and delighted she has demonstrated her willingness to assume this critical position and to face the kind of difficult path this confirmation process has imposed. Achieving confirmation, which I actively support, should be truly bipartisan. Blocking a vote on her nomination is disappointing and destructive. It is paralyzing partisan gamesmanship at its worst.
My former colleague is well respected in the environmental and business community in my State of Connecticut and around the country for her dedication to listening and developing public leadership and practical solutions to environmental challenges. She protects environmental values and policies while enhancing economic opportunity. She is no foe of the business community or economic progress and job creation. In fact, she sees how protecting economic values is complementary and supportive to environmental activism.
The President couldn't have picked a more qualified person to lead the EPA at this critical time. The combination of her experience, intelligence, energy, and unquestioned expertise will make Gina McCarthy an effective EPA Administrator. She has a deep understanding that the health and safety of the American people depends on clean air and clean water. The American people, more than ever, understand that fact. She is the right person for this job at this time.
I urge my colleagues to move forward with her confirmation, to avoid obstructionist tactics, and to embrace this nomination as good for all of the American people, for all of the interests she has sought to represent. I urge us to move forward as quickly as possible so this critical agency will have the kind of leadership that is so important at this point in our history.
I urge my colleagues to support my friend and the President's choice to lead the EPA. I assure my colleagues they will not be disappointed.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up