-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, it is really kind of interesting. A couple of years ago, we were talking about student loan debt. Colleges were saddling students with student loan debt, forcing them to live in their parents' basement because they couldn't pay back those loans.
If you look to the people taking these loans, they may not have completed their degree, or the degree they got paid them less in a year than the annual tuition they were forced to pay. And, of course, that tuition--paid for by borrowed Federal money--compounded interest, leaving them mired in debt.
It is a false compassion to say that every person should be able to borrow as much as they want from the Federal Government, to go to the school, whatever the school charges. That is a false compassion.
Republicans are not about false compassion. We are about allowing Americans to live the American dream, but that is not by saddling them with debt like a weight around their neck, pulling them into a pool of debt from which their whole life is affected.
It is pretty clear. The cost of higher education is out of control. And that is, in part, because of Federal lending programs that will allow students to borrow whatever they wanted to--almost. And so universities raise their tuition to maximize income, not to maximize value, but to maximize income.
By the way, a 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research study found that uncapped Federal borrowing for graduate programs did not increase access or degree attainment.
Think about this: Oh, we can give much, much, much more money, but the NBER found that giving as much money as they wanted did not increase access and did not increase degree attainment.
You know what it did increase? Student loan debt. That is what it increased because the universities making profit off of that really, ultimately, were not left holding the bag. It was the student and the U.S. taxpayer who were left holding the bag.
Colleges could increase their prices--the higher the cost, the bigger the loan. The kid drops out. He doesn't graduate. He can't pay back the loan. The taxpayer picks it up. The person is saddled with debt, but the college has the money.
Now, by the way, putting Americans more and more in debt, while colleges raise tuition, only makes the affordability crisis worse.
In August, Republicans put an end to this nonsense, and we passed the Working Families Tax Cut bill. We addressed the root cause of rising costs. We put limits on Federal loans for professional degrees.
As a result, there are universities already lowering their costs. Last fall, Santa Clara University cut law school tuition by $16,000, citing loan limits the Senate Republicans enacted as a catalyst. Think about that: Law schools are 3 years. Mr. President, 3 times 16, we got $48,000 less in borrowing in a response to the legislation that we passed.
UC Irvine recently announced cutting tuition for their MBA program by 38 percent for the upcoming fall semester.
Now, unfortunately, the resolution offered by my friend from Oregon undermines this success. And the claim is that this merely corrects a rule put forward by the Trump administration that limits access to taxpayer-funded loans for certain professions.
That is not true. This resolution would nullify the Department of Education's regulation for implementing all student loan reforms enacted in the reconciliation as part of the Working Families Tax Cut bill. Every part of it is going to be nullified.
A vote for this CRA undermines the $284 billion in savings for the U.S. taxpayer. A vote for this CRA is a vote to undermine changes that are already reducing the cost of higher education.
A vote for this is a vote to allow the student to borrow as much as she wants to in response to a tuition skyrocketing and to land her into a hell of student loan debt that she can never escape.
A vote for this is to go back to the Biden approach to student loans, rather than the historic reforms passed by congressional Republicans and signed into law by President Trump.
Now, by the way, there is a nuance here. If you are thinking about voting for this resolution because you have concerns about how professional degrees have been defined in the rule, we should talk. I am happy to have that because, frankly, I have some concerns about that. And so let's see if we can actually address that in an appropriate way, not in a blunt axe way.
That debate is a separate, targeted conversation, not fit for an overly broad CRA. For example, let's address the criticism that nurses and social workers are excluded from professional degrees.
Now, I am going to be clear. I am a doc. I worked with nurses. They are professionals. They are right up there with me because I have been--at 3 in the morning--taking care of sick patients vomiting blood. I know the professionalism that nurses bring to their care--similarly for social workers. So no one doubts that they are professionals. No one doubts that they are essential to the health system.
But this debate is a debate about certain degrees that are required for entrance into the profession and require longer lengths of study than graduate-level programs. And based on those factors, should you be able to borrow up to $200,000 in taxpayer-backed Federal loan programs to pay for a degree?
More importantly, do you have a realistic ability to pay back that loan? If someone does not have a realistic ability to pay back the loan, then the university should not be charging that much.
By the way, most nursing students--95 percent of them--borrow less than $100,000 to complete their degree. That is below the borrowing limit Congress established in the Working Families Tax Cut.
The 5 percent of nursing students borrowing more than $100,000 choose to take on that debt. They choose a more expensive option. Clearly, since 95 percent don't need to borrow that much, there are other options, and not all nurses need federally backed loans up to $200,000 in order to get their degree.
So, is my colleague suggesting that taxpayers subsidize the 5 percent of nursing students, regardless of their ability to pay back the loan? I don't think that is fair to them.
If there are limited number--and this is important--if there is a limited number of targeted subspecialties in professions--I think of a CRNA--that are inadvertently and inappropriately excluded by this rule, let's have a conversation. Let's measure their ability to pay back such a large loan and if that loan and the degree it pays for is necessary for their professional subspecialty. And, importantly, can they pay it back?
CRNAs do well. I personally think we should have a higher loan limit for them--that is one example--because they are going to do well financially. And to the point, it could be more expensive for them to have their training.
That is, if you will, a nuanced approach, looking at a group of people for which we know the facts. But that is not what this CRA does. It guts all reforms and sends us back to the Biden administration student loan disaster.
There are bipartisan efforts on my committee to make college more affordable for students, families, and taxpayers. I am leading the College Transparency Act, the CTA, which allows students to compare the differences between a college that they go to, and the major within that college, to see the value of the degree relative to the price of admission.
I ask my Democratic colleagues to work with us to advance these bipartisan solutions, not to push partisan resolutions that raise the cost of college and bury students with debt.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, sir.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASSIDY. Correct.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASSIDY. I think it was Santa Clara. I have to go back to my notes. I think it was Santa Clara.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASSIDY. I don't know if the University of Santa Clara is private or public.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CASSIDY. I don't know how many have, but the bill has just passed. And I do know that market reforms permeate society.
And as a student realizes, I can go to the community college down the street and get a nursing degree and pay for it entirely with a small amount of money, or I can go someplace far more expensive and have to borrow $100,000--in the case of the previous law, $200,000--that market forces--and, particularly, if we put in the College Transparency Act-- will have that individual go to one where they get the better value for their education. That, I am positive of.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source