[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 128 (Saturday, October 9, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10918-S10921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                TAXPAYER-TEACHER PROTECTION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to consideration of H.R. 5186, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the title of the bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       An act (H.R. 5186) to reduce certain special allowance 
     payments and provide additional teacher loan forgiveness on 
     Federal student loans.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this bill deserves to pass, but it's only 
a down-payment on the real reform needed to close a flagrant loophole 
in the student loan program. The bill takes $285 million in excessive 
subsidies to banks and gives it to college students and new teachers in 
the form of increased forgiveness for student loans.
  It is only a downpayment, however, because it does not close all of 
the notorious 9.5 percent student loan loophole, and because even this 
reform will expire after one year. The bill is silent on the full 
interest rate gouging that has taken place over the last 18 months--
funds that the Secretary of Education should have reclaimed on his own, 
and still should after this bill passes.
  Obviously, our Republican colleagues hope that this modest action 
will cool the public outcry that has erupted in the past month as the 
full extent of this shameful loophole has come to light.
  For almost 25 years, the taxpayer has been guaranteeing banks a 9.5 
percent rate of return on a specific type of student loans. In 1993, 
Congress acted to end the guarantee, but a loophole emerged that even 
the Government Accountability Office says the Bush administration has 
refused to shut down.
  Today's bill still leaves 40 percent of the loophole wide open. In 
other words, our Republican colleagues can no longer stand the heat 
from the loophole, and so they're now sacrificing 60 percent of it, in 
the hope that their special interest friends in the student loan 
industry can still retain the other 40 percent.
  Sadly, under this Republican bill, the abuse will continue. New loans 
will be

[[Page S10919]]

made to new students that taxpayers will subsidize at a 9.5 percent 
interest rate. It's madness. We should be allowing older borrowers to 
refinance their student loans at today's market rates, instead of 
subsidizing big banks at the high interest rates of the 1980s. We 
should be helping students who are eligible for Pell Grants, instead of 
subsidizing big banks needlessly.
  Republicans claim that some of this subsidy will go to student 
benefits. I say, it all should go to student benefits in whatever loan 
program a student participates. No one should be fooled. Half of the 
student loan loophole that this bill leaves wide open goes to for-
profit corporations like Nelnet and Sallie Mae.
  The 9.5 percent guarantee is still highway robbery for special 
interests. Our Republican colleagues reply that at least they're 
narrowing the highway from five lanes to two lanes. Banks like Nelnet 
and Sallie Mae can still drive right through, collecting outrageous 
profits at the expense of students and taxpayers.
  I had hoped to offer an amendment to this bill that would close the 
9.5 percent loan loophole completely and permanently. But the 
Republican Majority objects to that effort here and now. We will be 
back though on the first available vehicle to shut down this wasteful 
corporate subsidy once and for all.
  It's long past time for President Bush and Republicans find the 
courage to stand up to their special interest friends, and do what's 
right for the Nation's students and taxpayers.
  In most cases, lenders today receive a 3.6 percent rate of return on 
new student loans. But for the last 11 years, the Government--
taxpayers--have been guaranteeing lenders a 9.5 percent rate of return 
on a certain group of otherwise non-descript student loans. A 9.5 
percent rate of interest might have made sense years ago, but it 
doesn't today.
  In 1993, Congress passed legislation intended to phase-out of 
existence the 9.5 percent bank guarantee. But two key loopholes have 
kept that subsidy alive and well. The legislation before the Senate 
closes one.
  The first loophole--the one that isn't closed by this legislation--
allows for what is called 9.5 percent loan ``recycling.'' A lender 
makes a loan to a student--``Student A.'' Over the course of the next 
10 to 25 years, the lender is repaid by Student A and the lender gets a 
subsidy payment guaranteeing a 9.5 percent rate of return.
  Under the 1993 law, after one loan, there should be an end to that 
9.5 percent guarantee. But lenders have been recycling Student A 
payments and the attached Government subsidy into a new loans issued to 
new students--``Student B''--and claiming a 9.5 percent guarantee on 
those loans as well. So, 9.5 loans haven't been phased out at all. 
They've being maintained. And the Department of Education has done 
nothing about it.
  Worse, 18 months ago, lenders started growing the number of 9.5 
percent loans through a process called ``transferring.'' A lender 
shifts a loan out of its tax-exempt bond estate into its taxable bond 
estate. When the loan shifts, the 9.5 percent guarantee shifts with it 
and the tax-exempt bond estate then has money available to it to issue 
new 9.5 percent loans.
  As a result of ``transferring,'' 9.5 percent loan bank subsidy 
payments have more than doubled in the last 18 months. The Bush 
administration has refused to stop the process, despite Democrats' and 
GAO's urging.
  A year ago, Senate Democrats proposed legislation to shut both 
loopholes down once and for all. The Senate Republicans did not act on 
that proposal, did not introduce their own legislation, and did not 
hold a single hearing. They asked no oversight questions of the Bush 
administration. In short, they did nothing.
  Democrats requested a GAO investigation. We alerted non-partisan 
higher education policy experts. We requested an SEC investigation. Two 
months ago, we blew the whistle in the media on the new, explosive 
growth in the 9.5 loan subsidy. Finally, our Republican friends 
responded to the criticism with the legislation before us today.
  But again, this bill doesn't get the job done. It leaves the 
``recycling'' loophole open, and it lasts only one year. Now, this 
remains a live issue in the Appropriations Committee. I would hope we 
would follow the House's 413-13 vote lead in shutting down this 
loophole in its entirety. It's a change past due.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Gregg for 
taking what I hope is one of many steps in closing what most, if not 
all of us agree, is an egregious loophole in current law relating to 
student loans.
  In the 1980's, the Higher Education Act sought to attract more 
lenders to the student loan program by offering nonprofits a 9.5 
percent rate on return on student loans in exchange for their 
participation in the program. At a time of high interest rates, it 
provided an assurance to nonprofits that they could make student loans 
and stay afloat economically. The 9.5 percent subsidy was an incentive 
to bring the nonprofit sector into the lending business, to offer 
students more options in choosing a lender. The subsidy made sense at 
the time.
  In 1993, a time when interest rates were coming down, 9.5 percent 
amounted to a windfall for lenders. Congress rescinded the policy but 
grandfathered loans already made, assuming that the volume of these 
loans would decline as borrowers paid them off. That assumption turned 
out to be wrong.
  Exploiting a loophole in current law, some lenders, including for-
profits that have acquired nonprofits, have been rolling new loans into 
old accounts, sometimes for as little as a day, to qualify for the 
subsidy. That means that in today's market, some guaranteed a 9.5 
percent profit on 3.4 percent student loans. The Federal Government is 
making up the 6.1 percent difference.
  How egregious is this practice? From January 2004 to June 2004, one 
bank alone amassed over $3.2 billion in 9.5 percent loans by exploiting 
this loophole. The General Accounting Office GAO, has found that the 
overall volume of loans receiving a 9.5 percent return has increased to 
more than $17 billion this year from $11 billion in 1995. This is money 
that should be going to the student loan program and the Pell grant 
program, not bank profits.
  In response to this discovery, the Department of Education has been 
asked to issue new rules clarifying that the practice in question is, 
in fact, not within the intent of current law. They have refused to do 
so. They claim that their hands are tied, that only Congress can close 
the current loophole. The GAO disagrees.
  In a report issued September 21, the GAO states that the Department 
could use less formal guidance to clarify or alter its position on the 
practice, or publish an interim rule that would close the loophole 
until a formal rulemaking process is complete. The GAO also suggests 
that the Department publish an emergency rule. This type of rule allows 
Federal agencies to skip the formal process if they believe it would be 
``impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to public interest.'' The 
Department does not believe the current situation rises to that level. 
Clearly, it is against the public interest, and against the interest of 
the U.S. Treasury, to allow this practice to continue.
  According to some, the payments in question could cost the U.S. 
Treasury nearly $1 billion by the end of this calendar year and at 
least $5 billion over the next 10 years. This is money that could be 
used to send kids to college.
  Mr. President, in response to this crisis, Senator Gregg has proposed 
a bill to close the 9.5 percent loophole. There is just one problem 
with his bill. It does not close the loophole completely and it does 
not close the loophole permanently. The loophole should be completely 
and permanently closed.
  I applaud Senator Gregg for taking this first step. Between enactment 
of the change and the time that it expires next year, his bill will 
achieve a $285 million savings for the student loan program. If we were 
to shut down the loophole completely, we would achieve a $400 million 
savings within the same time frame. That would amount to an additional 
$115 million for student financial aid.
  In response to Senator Gregg's bill, Senator Kennedy offered an 
amendment to close the loophole completely and permanently. This is 
something that my Democratic colleagues and I have been fighting to do 
since last October. Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted.

[[Page S10920]]

  Mr. President, the Pell grant maximum has remained flat for 3 years. 
Tuition is up. And all the while, the Federal government is giving away 
a $1 billion annual subsidy through 9.5 percent loans. The Federal 
Government is paying hundreds of million of dollars in unnecessary 
subsidies to student loan companies. The bill before us allows this 
practice to continue, even if it is to a lesser extent. I hope we will 
have an opportunity in the near future to take definitive action to 
correct this egregious short-coming in the law.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I support the limited effort before us today 
to close a loophole in Federal student loan policy that has cost 
taxpayers billions of dollars over the past decade.
  In the 1980s, when there were fears that student loans would become 
scarce due to high interest rates, Congress provided lenders 
participating in the Federal Family Education Loan, FFEL, program a 
guaranteed minimum 9.5-percent return on student loans generated from 
tax-exempt bond funds. Congress did so to ensure that there would be 
lenders willing to make affordable loans for students.
  In 1993, Congress sought to end the 9.5-percent guaranteed return on 
what had become a small subset of student loans due to a much lower 
national interest rate environment, the growth in availability of other 
private bank and government-subsidized student loans, and the creation 
of Federal direct loans.
  In doing so, a grandfather clause was enacted for outstanding 9.5-
percent return, tax-exempt bond generated student loan funds. Rather 
than end the 9.5-percent loans, this grandfather clause has worked as a 
loophole. Owners of 9.5-percent guaranteed loans continually recycle 
proceeds from tax-exempt bonds originally issued before 1993--creating 
in effect a revolving loan fund--and the Federal Government continues 
to guarantee a 9.5-percent rate of return on what is today 
approximately 1 out of every 20 student loans. Lenders of the remaining 
19 out of 20 student loans receive a much lower guaranteed interest 
rate--less than 4 percent.
  This overpayment has grown dramatically over the past few years, as 
this administration and Department of Education have failed to 
intervene and stop it. According to the Government Accountability 
Office, GAO, the overpayment cost taxpayers well over $600 million by 
the end of June 2004, up from $209 million in Fiscal Year 2001.
  To finally close this loophole once and for all, I joined Senator 
Kennedy in introducing S. 1793, the College Quality, Affordability, and 
Diversity Improvement Act last October, which among many provisions to 
expand access to higher education, would eliminate the 9.5-percent 
giveaway. More recently, I cosponsored legislation introduced last week 
by Senator Murray--S. 2861, the Student Loan Abuse Prevention Act--
which would also permanently fix the abuse of the 9.5-percent rate and 
redirect the estimated savings of $5 billion over 10 years to increase 
the maximum Pell grant for low-income students.
  Regrettably, the bill before us today does not contain such a 
comprehensive and permanent fix. This more limited effort provides only 
a temporary 1-year solution and it continues to allow ``recycling'' of 
loans, as opposed to the bonds, by which the lender uses the income 
from current 9.5-percent guarantee. And, instead of using the more 
modest savings from this bill to boost grants for low-income students 
struggling to afford college, the savings will be used for a different 
but important cause--providing help to certain teachers through loan 
forgiveness.
  Considering how long it has taken the majority to act on this 
situation, I am pleased we are taking this first, although, limited 
step. I will be working with my colleagues to fully close this costly 
loophole in the upcoming Higher Education Act reauthorization process 
and capture these savings for students. I thank Senators Kennedy and 
Murray and their staffs for their leadership and work on this matter.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my ongoing work 
to protect taxpayers and help students by finally ending a special 
interest subsidy.
  As my colleagues know, I have been working to close a loophole that 
allows some banks to issue new students loans at outrageously inflated 
rates. These subsides were supposed to have ended more than ten years 
ago, but they continue today, and taxpayers are footing the bill.
  Just last year, this wasteful subsidy cost taxpayers $1 billion. 
Imagine how many students we could have helped if that money went to 
Pell Grants instead of the special interests. I believe we should close 
this loophole--immediately and permanently--and use the savings to help 
more students afford a college education.
  It is outrageous that taxpayers are paying 30 times what they should 
for these student loans. Interest rates haven't been at 9.5 percent in 
years, but new loans--at that inflated rate--are being written every 
day because of this loophole.
  On September 15, in the Appropriations Committee, I offered an 
amendment to close the loophole. My amendment would have used those 
savings--about $370 million--to increase grants to college students. My 
amendment had the support of every Democrat on the Appropriations 
Committee, but unfortunately the chairman and every Republican opposed 
it. They said they wanted to deal with it later.
  So Senator Kennedy and I came here to the Senate floor and called on 
the Department of Education to take action, since our colleagues were 
not ready to act. Unfortunately, the Department of Education refused. 
As the Government Accountability Office noted, the Department could 
have closed this loophole with the stoke of a pen. Last week--seeing 
that neither the Republican Congress nor the administration--were 
willing to act, I introduced my own bill to permanently and fully close 
this loophole and help our students.
  My bill is called the Student Loan Abuse Prevention Act S. 2861, and 
I thank Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Durbin, Reed, Dodd, and Clinton for 
cosponsoring it.
  My bill would use all of the savings to increase Pell Grants for 
students. The day after I introduced my bill, Senator Gregg offered his 
own bill, which we are considering today. I am pleased that the 
Republican leaders have finally offered a proposal. I am disappointed, 
however, that their plan does not fully close the loophole, expires 
after 1 year, and will not help today's student afford college.
  Let me say a word about each of those shortcomings. First, the Gregg 
bill does not fully close the loophole. This subsidy would still live 
on. My bill says that lenders cannot create new loans at 9.5 percent. 
No new subsidies--period. And that is important because in the past 2 
years lenders have used tricks to extend these outrageous subsidiaries, 
and we need to put an end to it. But the Republican bill is not a real 
fix. It does not stop these gimmicks entirely. In many cases, lenders 
could keep writing new loans at 9.5 percent for decades. Under the 
Republican bill, the outrageous subsidy will live on. So the first 
problem with the Republican bill is that it does not fully close the 
loophole and will still overcharge taxpayers for this lender subsidy.
  The second problem with the Gregg bill is that it expires after 1 
year. My bill will stop the subsidy forever. The Republican bill would 
expire in a year. I want my colleagues to know that when we work on the 
Higher Education Act, I will again work for a permanent fix that 
protects taxpayers--not just for 1 year--but forever.
  The third problem with the Gregg bill is that it does nothing to help 
students who are trying to pay for college today. While there are a lot 
of good uses for this money, I would also like to see those dollars go 
straight into the pockets of our students so they can pay for college.
  So the Gregg bill before us has three big problems--it doesn't fully 
close the loophole, it expires after a year, and it doesn't help 
today's college student. But--after all the work it has taken to get 
the Republicans to finally address this--the Gregg bill is a step 
forward and one we should take while we can.
  I believe that our students and taxpayers deserve better. They 
deserve a real fix that is permanent and that helps today's students. 
But, given the reluctance we have seen so far, given the votes against 
my amendment last month, and the Bush administration's refusal to act, 
we should pass this first step and stay on the job until it is done and 
done right.

[[Page S10921]]

  And I remind my colleagues that we will revisit the Higher Education 
Act next year, and I will fight to close this loophole fully and 
permanently. From coast to coast, the price of college education is 
soaring and parents and students are struggling. I will continue to 
fight for policies that put students above special interests and that 
protect taxpayers from these wasteful subsidies.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 5186) was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________