[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4458-S4462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Student Loan Debt Relief Plan

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, October 4, 1957. Many in the Chamber 
were not alive at that date. I was. I was a teenager, maybe in high 
school, just starting, or at the end of grade school. But it was a big 
day in the history of the world, October 4, 1957, because at 7:28 p.m. 
at night, the Russians launched Sputnik.
  Sputnik was a basketball-size satellite, and we were concerned 
because we believed the Russians--then the Soviet Union--had the 
capacity to drop an atomic or nuclear bomb on the United States, and if 
they could do it from space, for goodness' sake, how would we defend 
ourselves?
  So a mild panic hit America, particularly in this town of Washington, 
and out of that panic came a pretty good idea, as far as I was 
concerned. They decided that for the first time in the history of the 
United States, we would start loaning money to college-age students so 
they could go to college. The notion was, if we had to fight the 
Russians or the Soviets in technology, we better have people educated 
and prepared to do it.
  So someone who in those days sat down and wrote up the names of these 
wonderful ideas came up with a great one. It was called the National 
Defense Education Act. The National Defense Education Act said that 
those who applied for Federal college loans could borrow money and pay 
it back at 3 percent interest but not have to pay until 1 year out of 
college, and then they had 10 years to pay it off.
  I didn't know at the time, but that turned out to be my ticket to 
college. There was no way that my family could afford to send me, nor 
could I afford to go to school at good schools from any money that I 
had saved or could earn during the summer. It was the government loans 
that got me through it. And I wasn't alone. By the tens of thousands, 
students all over the United States took out these National Defense 
Education Act loans.
  Well, what happened as a result of that idea that we could educate 
ourselves out of this problem? It worked. It worked dramatically. In 
the early 1960s, there was this explosive expansion of our economy, of 
technology and research and scientific endeavors that we took advantage 
of for decades and still do to this day.
  I think about the race to the Moon and all the other things that we 
set our sights on, and they were all based on enough well-educated 
people at every level who could compete with countries around the world 
and do it successfully. So the concept is sound, and I think it was 
executed--not flawlessly, but very well--for myself and for many 
others, and I ended up borrowing that money to get through college and 
law school.
  The amount of debt if I even said it on the floor maybe would draw a 
laugh by the pages and everyone else because it was so small, but it 
was enough debt that it just scared me to death. It was the equivalent 
of 50 percent of my gross pay coming out of law school in 1 year. But 
most students today would accept that in a second: 50 percent of their 
gross wages in their first year as their student loan debt.
  The average is higher. The average is over $25,000, and for some 
students, it is almost astronomical what they end up borrowing. I can't 
even imagine the cost of colleges and law schools today and medical 
schools and dental schools and the debt that is involved--which leads 
me to the second point in history and I think it was sometime in the 
1960s.
  Somebody wrote a story about student loan borrowers who went to 
medical school, finished medical school, then got their licenses to 
practice medicine with a pretty good opportunity to make some real 
money in life, but they had one more stop. They stopped at the 
bankruptcy court and they discharged their student loans in bankruptcy 
court and then went on to practice medicine.
  Well, that sounded like a pretty bad deal for the government who 
trusted them to get a degree and earn enough money to pay back the loan 
and in the

[[Page S4459]]

fairness of this, that they wouldn't accept their responsibility. So 
someone dreamed up the idea that, well, let's make sure you cannot 
discharge your student loan in bankruptcy court.
  There are a handful of debts that you can incur that cannot be 
discharged in bankruptcy court--but just a handful. Taxes that you owe 
the government, for example, I believe, are not dischargeable; money 
that you owe in divorce settlements and child support are not 
dischargeable; and a handful of other things. But otherwise, anything 
you can borrow money for, you can go to bankruptcy court and say, ``I 
want to walk away from all my debts,'' and achieve that goal.
  For example, if you had a mortgage on your home and you want to be 
discharged from paying off that mortgage, you can do it in bankruptcy 
court. You may or may not have any home left after it is discharged in 
bankruptcy, but it is a fact. If you borrow money to buy a boat, you 
can discharge that loan in bankruptcy. If you buy a car, you can 
discharge it in bankruptcy. A second home? Discharge it in bankruptcy. 
But when it came to student loans, we said because some of these people 
took advantage and didn't pay back their loans, we are not going to 
allow you to discharge it in bankruptcy.
  That ultimately meant that those who borrowed money to go to school 
or college when they were 19 or 20 years old, they would have a debt 
that they will have to pay back or carry it to the grave--literally, 
carry it to the grave. There was no way to get rid of it.
  So what happened? We know. A lot of people got too deeply in debt. It 
turned out that even the promise of a college diploma was not enough to 
meet their obligations, so they are deeply in debt.
  (Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)
  Now, Mr. President, let me mention a third category of things that 
started before the Presiding Officer arrived. There was Sputnik which 
changed the world and the National Defense Education Act; we went and 
changed the bankruptcy law and said that you can't discharge a student 
loan in bankruptcy.
  Now, let me introduce a third phenomenon. And I have done so before, 
but I want to give you two numbers, and I want you to get out your pens 
and pencils, and I want you to write them down because they are going 
to be on the final. OK? There are two numbers: 8 and 33--8 and 33. So 
when you see the question on the final of what percentage of college 
students go to for-profit colleges and universities, hold up your hand. 
It is 8 percent. Eight percent of college students go to for-profit 
colleges and universities. Those are the ones that are heavily 
advertised. You see them everywhere.
  Thirty-three. What percentage of all student loan defaults are 
students who went to for-profit colleges and universities? Thirty-three 
percent. Eight percent of the students have 33 percent of the student 
loan defaults.
  What is going on here? Why are those students so disproportionately 
defaulting on their student loan debt? They were misled into going into 
these schools that were worthless--worthless.
  You see ads on TV that show this lovely young lady. She was in her 
bedroom in her pajamas with a laptop computer saying, ``I am going to 
college.''
  And you think to yourself: Get real. This isn't real college. This is 
a way to get you to pay too much in tuition for something that is 
basically worthless. And students do. Eight percent of college students 
do it.
  So the point I am making is, many of these students are deceived and 
duped into going to these colleges because of the promises they make 
about what these degrees are worth and how easy it is to acquire an 
associate's or bachelor's degree. So they are deeply in debt, and they 
can't find a job and take care of them. I will tell you the story of 
one of them in just a moment.
  But put those together, and that is why we need to do something about 
student loans in America. Yes, we need student loans in America. They 
are good for America and its economy. Should they be dischargeable in 
bankruptcy? I think, under some circumstances, they should be.
  If 10 years have passed and you still had a balance on your student 
loans and you were literally head over heels in debt, you ought to be 
able to discharge that in bankruptcy. You tried your best. Ten years is 
enough. That is one approach. But the other approach, President Biden 
has just suggested. That is why he issued a one-time student loan debt 
relief program to ease the college debt burden on middle- and lower-
income families.
  Under the President's plan, the government will erase $10,000 in 
Federal student loan debt for some borrowers who make less than 
$125,000 a year. If you are married and file taxes jointly or head of 
household, you qualify if your income is $250,000 or less. If you 
received a Pell Grant while you were going to college--and those are 
for lower-income families--you could qualify for an extra $10,000 of 
student loan cancellation.
  Under the President's plan, 43 million Americans will receive some 
amount of debt cancellation. A majority of them--about 27 million 
borrowers--will see up to $20,000 knocked off their student loan 
balance. For 20 million borrowers, that is enough to totally wipe out 
their entire student loan balance. They literally can start again. They 
can consider going back to school--maybe even a good school that gives 
them the kind of training, education, or degree that really can lead to 
a better life. Or they can try to take another course of action.
  There are other approaches. I have got labor unions all over my State 
begging for apprentices--good-paying jobs for skilled craftsmen and the 
like. They don't need a college degree to achieve that. Some of them 
may consider that.
  Everyone who qualifies for relief will get a lower monthly payment at 
least, and that means real help now. Of course, it isn't a real 
complete solution to the challenge. Too many colleges are charging too 
much money.
  When I ask of a nice college: What does that nice college ask for 
tuition? I visited one just over the August break. And someone said: It 
is $72,000 a year. I said, For tuition? How in the world can it be?
  Well, they give a lot of student grants and scholarships and 
fellowships and this, that, and the other thing. But the cost of higher 
education is getting beyond the reach of average people, and that is a 
big problem. We need to have affordable education and education that 
helps you meet your goals.
  I might also say that some of the people who have been involved in 
borrowing money have some sad stories to tell.
  Vickie Vences is one of thousands of Illinois students who were 
deceived by one of these for-profit colleges called Westwood. Vickie 
grew up on the South Side of Chicago. She is the first person in her 
family to attend college.
  She decided that she wanted to go into law enforcement. She enrolled 
in a criminal justice program in Westwood College in 2004 in Chicago. 
She believed the recruiters. They said: A degree from Westwood is going 
to open the door for you, young lady, right into the field of law 
enforcement.
  She found the opposite was true. They laughed at her when she showed 
her resume from Westwood College. They said: That is not a real 
college. That is not a real degree, and that doesn't help you a bit--
because Westwood hid the truth about the fact that they were not 
accredited in Illinois. A lot of young people were duped into believing 
it was a ticket to a good law enforcement job.
  By the time Vickie found out how badly she was into it, she had 
$50,000 in student loan debt, and she didn't have even a Westwood 
degree to point to.
  That is unfortunate. She could have done a lot more with her life, 
were it not for the student debt and the deception of these for-profit 
schools. She is working mostly for nonprofit organizations. She finds 
it hard to make any of her loan payments. The good news is that the 
Department of Education canceled the student loan debts of all former 
Westwood College students following investigations into Westwood's 
widespread misconduct. Vickie is going to get a break.
  That is why, I have to tell you, I was a little upset with one of our 
colleagues--and I won't name names. We are not supposed to do that on 
the Senate floor. But he started mocking the students who are heavily 
in debt. I think he referred to them as ``slatternly baristas.'' I 
think that means they are lazy and work at Starbucks--

[[Page S4460]]

and here, they have too much debt, and it is their own damn fault.
  I couldn't disagree more. Students, when you are 19 or 20 years old, 
don't know what is a reasonable debt and what isn't. They just don't 
have life experience. Many of them are first-generation college 
students in their family. Mom and dad are not much help. They want to 
see their kids get a college degree. That is supposed to be the ticket 
to success. So young people sign up for loans, and they sign up in 
schools that can't produce a diploma that leads to a job, and they get 
stuck with it.
  Vickie, I mentioned earlier, tried her best to pay off these loans 
and doesn't have much luck. She says that being freed of some of this 
debt is going to be at least lifting part of the burden. Let's be 
honest about it. I don't know that she is lazy or if ``barista'' is now 
a negative term. I don't think it is. Those folks are working, and I 
respect the fact that they are.
  She said, ``I'm not asking for anything for free. I just think things 
should be fair. Education should be affordable. And we ought to be able 
to earn enough to pay back what we owe.''
  These Republican colleagues of mine are setting out to stop this plan 
by Joe Biden. I guess it will be a great source of pride if they do it. 
They can say: We stopped this relief for all of these young people who 
are in debt. We sunk them deeper into despair. And we did it because it 
is an election year.
  I think it is unfortunate. The President's student loan forgiveness 
plan is not a giveaway to rich doctors and lawyers who racked up big 
debt at Ivy League schools. Ninety-eight percent of the student loan 
borrowers did not attend those schools. The majority of these debts are 
held by families who have zero net worth--zero. What will their life be 
like without help? Nearly 90 percent of the relief dollars in the 
President's plan will go to borrowers who earn less than $75,000 a 
year.
  And let's reflect for a moment on what has happened over the last few 
years in the United States of America under the previous President who 
will go unnamed and what we have seen as a result of this pandemic.
  Remember when we came up and were unable to articulate the number 
``trillion dollars'' without shaking? We started talking about 
trillion-dollar relief packages in the pandemic. And we said to people: 
We are going to have loans through the Small Business Administration 
for people who have a job or a business and need a helping hand in 
terms of borrowing money to get by. And if you can prove that you spent 
the money on payroll and utilities and rent, it is forgiven.
  So take a look at that mechanism. Through no fault of their own, they 
were stuck with debt because of the pandemic. They borrowed money from 
the Federal Government--taxpayers' money--and if they could spend it 
for the right things, it was forgiven, a walkaway. I didn't hear a lot 
of speeches about ``slatternly baristas'' at that point in time. And we 
have also seen it happen before. In fact, we have had a number of 
Members of Congress who applied for some of those PPP loans.
  The same people who are criticizing forgiving student loan debts 
literally personally borrowed money that they didn't pay back to the 
Federal Government, and they don't think there is anything wrong with 
that. I can go into a long list of people who have benefited by loans 
that were forgiven or grants given by the Federal Government.
  Better than going through that list, let me say the bottom line is 
this: If we can help these young student borrowers with an opportunity 
to reduce the debt they owe and get their lives back online, that is a 
great outcome for them and a great one for this Nation.
  The same type of idealism that drove us to the National Defense 
Education Act after Sputnik applies as well today. We should have a 
well-trained, well-educated American workforce ready to compete with 
the world. I think we can do it. Joe Biden's step is a reasonable, 
humane step in the right direction. It should have bipartisan support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4798

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, last month, in a completely 
partisan process, Senate Democrats pushed through their progressive and 
deceivingly named Inflation Reduction Act. That bill was a disaster, as 
it was full of reckless tax increases and spending.
  Perhaps the worst part of it was that it authorized $80 billion in 
new funding to the IRS--$80 billion. For reference, that is about the 
same as what we allocated for Florida's entire State budget when I was 
Governor, and Florida is the third largest State in the Nation. Even 
though the IRS does a poor job with the resources it currently has, the 
Democrats opted to supersize the IRS so they could fund 87,000 new IRS 
agents, some of whom will be armed and willing to use deadly force to 
carry out their duties.
  So, while the Democrats are calling to defund the police and are 
leaving our Border Patrol agents without the tools they need to secure 
the southern border, they are happy to enlarge the IRS. We don't even 
have 20,000 Border Patrol agents--a quarter of the number of new IRS 
agents the Democrats want; yet they have now approved 87,000 additional 
IRS agents. That is insane.
  That many agents under the direction of President Biden should 
concern every American. We all remember that when Joe Biden was Vice 
President, the IRS went after conservative groups and Tea Party 
organizations. Now, armed with tens of billions in new funding and tens 
of thousands of new agents, what is stopping Joe Biden from directing 
the IRS to go after groups he doesn't like? What about pregnancy 
resource centers or Second Amendment groups?
  Here is what the Democrats are doing: They are turning the IRS into a 
super Agency to audit more Americans so they can fund even more of 
their reckless tax-and-spend agenda. Let's not forget that last year, 
the Democrats wanted the IRS to spy on nearly every American's bank 
account and track one's everyday transactions. American families can 
see straight through Biden's plans, and they are furious. We all should 
be furious.
  Without a single Republican vote, the Democrats authorized 87,000 
more IRS agents--doubling the size of the Agency--all to pull as many 
dollars as they can away from hard-working families and small 
businesses so they can fund liberal projects and appease their radical 
base with more government bailouts.
  Case in point: Biden's illegal order to transfer student loan debt 
from borrowers to taxpayers. Someone has to pay for the hundreds of 
billions of dollars of debt that these borrowers voluntarily took on. 
Now, instead of the borrowers paying for their own educations, that 
burden is now borne by every American taxpayer. You didn't go to 
college? The Democrats don't care. You will pay the debt of lawyers and 
doctors. Have you already paid off your loans? Biden doesn't want to 
hear it. Tough luck. Your taxes are the money pot for other people's 
student debts, and if Democrats are going to keep declaring everything 
to be free, Biden is going to need a lot more taxpayer money.
  That, my fellow Americans, is how we get full circle back to the 
supersized IRS. It is a vicious cycle to fund a radical, socialist 
agenda. We have to stop it now.
  I am here to do what countless Floridians have asked me to do--strike 
this terrible policy from law. It is time to rein in the Federal 
Government, and that work begins with putting a stop to Biden's IRS 
army. My bill would simply repeal this disastrous IRS expansion, and I 
ask all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4798. I 
further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed 
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, it is 
time for a reality check here in the Senate.
  The far right has had an awful lot to say about the IRS in these last 
few days. Even Senators who should supposedly know better are spinning 
wild fantasy stories about 87,000 agents who are armed to the teeth and 
coming to

[[Page S4461]]

the doors of innocent small business people. All this talk is unscathed 
by the truth.
  Here is what is true: Every year, wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw 
corporations skip out on paying what they owe and rip off the American 
people for billions and billions of dollars. Let me say that again. 
Wealthy tax cheats are ripping off innocent taxpayers, every year, of 
billions and billions of dollars. They are sophisticated. They are 
wealthy. They want to protect the status quo. By attacking the IRS, the 
Republicans are helping high-flying tax cheats get away with breaking 
the law.
  The IRS has had its resources gutted by the Republicans over the last 
decade. It is badly outmatched now by the wealthy tax cheats, who have 
armies of lawyers and accountants who are prying open loopholes and 
hiding income in the shadows. Let me give the Senate an example.
  A few weeks ago, I put out the findings of a yearlong Finance 
Committee investigation into the largest alleged tax evasion scheme by 
one individual in American history. With the right financial wizardry 
and a complicated network of offshore accounts and partnerships, this 
individual, Robert Brockman, was able to evade taxes on over $2 billion 
in income. To hide his money, he set up offshore entities that we call 
shell banks. They were offshore entities dressed up like financial 
institutions that Mr. Brockman set up to hide his money from the IRS, 
betting correctly that the IRS wouldn't have the resources to uncover 
his scheme. There may be hundreds of thousands more of these shell 
banks that the IRS has never examined.
  The Finance Committee is also in the midst of an investigation into 
the tax practices of some of the biggest members of Big Pharma. One of 
the companies whose tax data we examined was AbbVie. In 2020, 75 
percent of AbbVie's sales were made in the United States, but AbbVie 
reported only 1 percent of its income to the United States for tax 
purposes. Earlier this year, we requested financial information from 
Merck, which makes nearly half of its sales in the United States, but 
it reported only 14 percent of its income here. We also requested 
information from Bristol Myers Squibb, which reportedly used a thicket 
of foreign subsidiaries and partnerships to take its effective tax rate 
from 24.7 percent all the way down to a negative 7 percent in a single 
year.
  The IRS struggles to do anything about many of these cases even when 
they get reported in the press. Criminal tax evasion cases have fallen 
nearly by half. The number of highly trained experts who know how to 
break down these complex tax evasion cases has fallen by a third. It 
takes hundreds and hundreds of hours to review the tax filings of 
corporations and the rich, and the IRS just doesn't have the resources 
to go after these wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw corporations. So 
there is a reason the Democrats believe you have to invest more 
resources to enforce the laws on the books.

  Here is the most important point: It doesn't have anything to do with 
middle-class taxpayers, because their taxes are taken out automatically 
of every single paycheck. That is really different than the way the big 
guys go about their activities in ripping off the little guys with 
complex tax evasion schemes. What so many Republicans want to do is 
preserve the status quo so that only the little guys get audited while 
billionaire friends like Robert Brockman get off scot-free.
  Funding for the IRS is also about providing a basic level of customer 
service to taxpayers who are in Colorado, in Oregon, and in every part 
of the country. At one point during the filing season this year, the 
IRS told the Finance Committee that it was able to answer only 11 
percent of the service phone calls it was receiving. Taxpayers in 
America deserve better service from their government, and that means 
making sure the IRS has the resources to provide it.
  The far right and the tax cheats--the wealthy tax cheats--want the 
IRS, apparently, to continue to struggle because it makes it easier to 
attack and vilify. That is why we have heard so many falsehoods about 
the thousands of new IRS agents. I don't know where this number came 
from. It is absolute nonsense that has been conjured out of nothing.
  Even worse are the falsehoods about IRS agents and firearms. 
Alongside the DEA, the FBI, and other law enforcement Agencies, the IRS 
often plays a part in going after drug cartels, money launderers, and 
other serious, hardened criminals. So the question is, How do my 
Republican colleagues expect IRS criminal investigation officers to 
defend themselves during drug busts against violent cartels? Should 
they bring a set of sharpened No. 2 pencils?
  We are talking about living in the real world. The IRS funding that 
the Democrats passed last month is about making sure that the IRS can 
do its job and meet the expectations of the American people.
  I can tell you, as a Senator who has townhall meetings in every 
county of my State every year, the people of my State say: Look, we are 
law-abiding. We pay our taxes. There is something way out of whack when 
these wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw corporations can pay little or 
nothing.
  It is time for Members of Congress to stop going to bat for these 
wealthy tax cheats who break the law. The IRS needs to be able to crack 
down on these rip-offs. The IRS needs to be able to provide adequate 
and timely service. The taxpayers need help, and that is what the IRS 
funding does.
  What we have heard so much about from my colleagues on the far right 
in raising this specter of agents--thousands of them, armed to the 
teeth, coming to the doors of small businesses--is simply unscathed by 
the truth.
  For that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague that 
if you owe taxes, you should pay your taxes, but what is inconsistent 
with what my colleague just said is that we had an amendment vote that 
would say that none of these agents could go after anybody making less 
than $400,000 a year. Every Democrat, I believe, in the Senate voted 
against that. So the goal is, absolutely, we should make sure that 
wealthy taxpayers pay everything they owe, but we had an amendment that 
would make sure this was focused on wealthy taxpayers--this was during 
a vote just before we left on recess--and every Democrat voted against 
that.
  For all of those who are watching, here is what you are going to see: 
The Democratic Party has created a platform to audit more Americans--
not just wealthy Americans but all Americans. This isn't about 
fairness; this is about power. The Democrats want to spy on your bank 
transactions, and they want to send 87,000 more IRS agents on the 
streets to collect the bill for their reckless spending.
  Joe Biden has pitched his provision in the image of Robin Hood taking 
from the rich, but in reality, this expansion is in the image of the 
Sheriff of Nottingham stealing from the poor and the working class.
  None of us should be surprised the Democrats are doubling down on the 
radical IRS expansion policies. We all should be pretty mad. When the 
Republicans take control of Congress in January, you can expect that we 
will do everything in our power to repeal this terrible policy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would just like to briefly discuss the 
amendment that came up during the budget discussion.
  Senate Democrats made it very, very clear that we were strongly 
against taxing those in our country with incomes under $400,000. The 
problem with the amendment that the Republicans offered is they used 
the word ``taxable'' income. So, while we strongly opposed raising 
taxes on middle-class people and others making under $400,000, the 
wording of the Republicans' amendment, which talked about taxable 
income, could have immunized billionaires from being subject to an 
audit. That is because, as the Presiding Officer and I have talked 
about, billionaires often live by this ``buy, borrow, and die'' 
philosophy, and they have little or no taxable income for years on end. 
My colleagues probably saw some of the stories, for example, about 
billionaires who are claiming the child tax credit because their 
taxable income

[[Page S4462]]

is actually low under the way it is defined.
  Just to make sure the record is clear, we are all in on this effort 
of not taxing middle-income folks. We subscribe completely. In fact, it 
is what we had in the bill, and our enforcement section made that clear 
as well. But we are not for creating new paths to tax evasion for 
billionaires. Regrettably, that is what the language in the 
Republicans' amendment would have done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. The easiest way to solve my colleague's issue 
would have been to propose an amendment to make sure that we didn't go 
after taxpayers making less than $400,000 a year, but not one Democrat 
did that. All they did was just vote against this and then after the 
fact say: Well, it was a language issue. If it were simply a language 
issue, we could have solved it that night.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.