[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1817-S1824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
    UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
 EDUCATION RELATING TO ``WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS OF FEDERAL STUDENT 
                                LOANS''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by 
title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8

[[Page S1818]]

     of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the 
     Department of Education relating to ``Waivers and 
     Modifications of Federal Student Loans''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Illinois.


                              Debt Ceiling

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham of 
South Carolina has been my friend and ally in many causes, and we 
notably disagree on others. He recognizes--and I share with him--the 
importance of continued support for Ukraine. He has been a steadfast 
partner in support of that country and holding Russia accountable for 
war crimes, but not addressing the manufactured debt ceiling crisis 
also could threaten to undermine continued U.S. support.
  My colleague has raised concerns about the level of growth of defense 
spending in the bipartisan debt deal that was announced this last 
weekend. Specifically, the budget for the Department of Defense for 
fiscal year 2024 is $886 billion, at a 3-percent rate of growth over 
the previous year. That funding level does not threaten our national 
security. We are still, and we will be for the foreseeable future, the 
global leader in defense spending--the world's global leader in defense 
spending.
  Now, there are valid concerns about China and Russia and the amount 
of money they are spending on the military, especially with the war in 
Ukraine and aggression in the South China Sea.
  I have a chart here which demonstrates, in one respect, the 
difference. You can clearly see, when you look at the United States 
expenditure, when it comes to military spending in the year 2022, that 
it is dramatically larger than any other country. In fact, when it 
comes to our defense budget, the United States continues to outspend 
the next 10 countries in the world combined.
  In the decade following the horrific attacks on September 11, U.S. 
military spending increased 50 percent, adjusted for inflation, 
compared to a fraction of that for other discretionary spending 
priorities.
  Our spending wisely goes to competitive pay for servicemembers--to 
recruit and retain the best, most powerful, all-volunteer force. On 
average, the Chinese Army pays their soldiers $108 per month, compared 
to $1,733 per month average here in the United States.
  Russian contract soldiers can make $1,100 a month. Conscripts can be 
paid as little as $25 a month in Russia.
  Our spending has gone toward 11 world-class aircraft carriers. China 
just barely acquired a third carrier, which according to even Chinese 
analysts is still a long way from competing with the United States in 
that category.
  Finally, our spending goes toward maintaining a global presence, 
ensuring sea lanes are open to commerce, and fostering stability in key 
areas of the world. Russia and China don't have that priority. Instead, 
they focus on aggression closer to their borders and exploiting other 
nations.
  Now, much of the current budget discussion is also focused on 
responsible spending and oversight, and Congress has an important 
oversight responsibility.
  Pentagon spending keeps increasing--and not just because of inflation 
but because of increased prices from defense companies--and as recently 
pointed out on the television show ``60 Minutes,'' in some cases 
because of what seems like obvious price gouging.
  Put simply, increased defense spending does not automatically go 
toward deterring China or Russia. I chaired the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee for several years 
and was ranking member as well. It is an awesome responsibility. More 
than half of our Federal budget goes through that one subcommittee. 
Many times, I stopped in the middle of our deliberations about the 
appropriate spending to keep America safe and to protect our allies and 
interests around the world and asked how these other countries managed 
to be so powerful and spend so much less.
  One explanation I have already accounted for, and that is, they pay 
their soldiers a lot less. We value the men and women in uniform. We 
want the best. We want to stand by them. We want them to make a career 
of service in the military, in many instances, and we need to pay them 
accordingly. I get it. But if you even take that and put it aside, it 
still puzzles me how many of these countries spend so little and yet 
compete with us in so many high-cost categories here in the United 
States.
  We all know that global security goes beyond hardware and soldiers. 
The conflicts of today and tomorrow are no longer fought just on 
battlefields. Technology is dramatically transforming warfare through 
advanced platforms that can allow a single ship to perform what several 
ships did decades ago to a mass dissemination of propaganda that 
disrupts democracies and downplays autocracies.
  Climate change also will fuel future conflicts and instability.
  To quote former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, ``There are limits to 
what even the strongest and greatest nation on Earth can do--and not 
every outrage, act of aggression, oppression or crisis should elicit a 
U.S. military response.''
  An even bigger defense budget doesn't equal complete security. China 
knows this. It is investing billions on spending related to national 
security outside of defense: infrastructure projects, clean energy, 
artificial intelligence.
  I can recall a trip to Israel on a congressional delegation led by 
Harry Reid. Shimon Peres was the leader in Israel and a well-respected 
man for many decades. And when Harry Reid asked him what is the 
greatest threat to the United States, he said very quickly: China. 
Don't you see it?
  Of all the answers he could have given us--terrorism, loose nukes, 
other responses--he said it was China.
  And I started asking the question then of visitors from foreign 
countries to my office here in Washington: What is the presence of 
China in your country? Without exception, every one of them said: Oh, 
China has a growing presence in our country. They are an important part 
of our economy and our future.
  And I was thinking to myself, China has a plan. It has a vision. It 
is insinuating itself in countries all around the world. The Belt and 
Road project is a good example of that. Do we have a plan in the United 
States? Sometimes I wonder. We certainly have the right values. I have 
no question about that in my mind. But do we sell those values the way 
the Chinese sell their interests? I don't think we do. I think when it 
comes to the U.S. involvement in countries around the world, we believe 
that the magic of capitalism and free markets will be appreciated by so 
many other countries and that they will come to our side naturally. I 
think it takes more effort--effort like the Chinese.
  It is interesting in research to compete on cutting-edge technology. 
My colleagues know this because they have supported the CHIPS and 
Science Act to precisely address the issue of America's place in the 
world. China uses these investments as diplomatic influence all over 
the world with its Belt and Road Initiative.
  My colleague has been an excellent chair--Lindsey Graham--and ranking 
member of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. 
He knows the importance of these investments and the overall strength 
of the United States. If you want to beat China on spending on national 
security, we need to look beyond the Pentagon box and look at all the 
other Agencies that are facing caps and focus on the strength of our 
capabilities.
  Here is the reality. The greater harm to national and global security 
is not perceived lower defense spending but rather a default on our 
debt. Let's hope we can avoid that this week, this manufactured 
political crisis. Not paying our bills would result in a loss of trust 
in the stability of the United States. That feeds right into Russia and 
China's narrative that the West is now weak, and they are strong.
  A short-term debt limit extension will not project strength or 
stability. We have a responsibility in Congress to send a message of 
stability to the world. The choice is simple for me, and I hope my 
colleagues can see the greater picture as well.
  I would just conclude on the obvious difference of opinion I have 
with Senator Graham. He and I will agree on more than we disagree, but 
on this particular issue, I believe that larding the

[[Page S1819]]

budget at the Department of Defense has a deleterious impact on us in 
the long haul. We have to incentivize the people making these decisions 
to be careful about the money being spent, to spend it wisely, and not 
to overspend. The procurement system in the U.S. military, I am sad to 
say, the Department of Defense, is desperately in need of reform and 
improvement. That would be part of saving some money that doesn't make 
us any stronger but costs the taxpayers too much.
  So this illustration here of the United States at this dramatic $877 
billion compared to $292 billion in China is an indication of our 
spending and what we can expect from it for the security of our 
country. We can do a lot better. Just throwing money at the problem is 
not a solution.


                              Memorial Day

  Mr. President, this past weekend marked a sacred and solemn day for 
Americans. On Memorial Day, we remember those who gave their lives for 
this country. And on this Memorial Day, we were reminded once again 
that the struggle to defend freedom is never over.
  The peace and freedom, for which more than 1 million American 
servicemembers gave their lives for in World War II, is now threatened 
again in the same theater by a delusional despot, drunk on the fantasy 
of reclaiming a bygone Russian Empire. And once again, the free nations 
of the world are united in our determination to defend peace and 
freedom as we did in World War II.
  Over the last 2 weeks, the world witnessed a stark contrast between a 
dictator seeking to crush democracy and leaders determined to defend 
it. We saw Ukrainian President Zelenskyy travel to the Arab League 
summit in Saudi Arabia and eloquently argue that nations cannot sit on 
the sidelines during Russia's brutal war of aggression. He said:

       Unfortunately, there are some in the world, and here among 
     you, who turn a blind eye to . . . illegal annexations. . . . 
     I am here so that everyone can take an honest look, no matter 
     how hard the Russians try to influence.''

  These were courageous and wise words to an important audience. Saudi 
Arabia did the right thing by inviting President Zelenskyy to address 
the Arab League, and it can do more to rehabilitate its tarnished 
international image by helping Ukraine.
  President Zelenskyy then joined the G7 summit in Hiroshima, where he 
spoke with leaders of the world's major industrialized democracies. It 
is worth remembering that Russia was kicked out of that organization, 
what was then called the G8, nearly 10 years ago for its initial 
unprovoked invasion of the Crimea region of Ukraine.
  At this most recent G7 summit, there was no longer any delusion that 
Russia is a struggling democracy or a major industrial power. Under 
Putin, Russia has become a mortal threat to freedom and to global 
security and prosperity. In pledging $375 million in additional 
military support for Ukraine, President Biden vowed, ``Together with 
the entire G7, we have Ukraine's back and I promise we're not going 
anywhere.'' The words of President Biden.
  He confirmed the United States would join European allies in training 
Ukrainians to fly F-16s, a move I fully support.
  At the G7, President Zelenskyy also met with Indian Prime Minister 
Modi, who said that India would do everything it could to stop the war, 
noting: For me, it is a matter of humanity.
  Prime Minister Modi's comments are welcome. I hope he will at long 
last formally and forcibly condemn Russia's war and rethink India's 
troubling purchases of Russian oil.
  Now contrast President Zelenskyy's statesmanship with the 
reprehensible conduct of Putin's Russia. I want to show a photo here of 
what, unfortunately, has been too common. It shows the near total 
destruction of Bakhmut, a once thriving Ukrainian city of more than 
70,000 people; Russia's ongoing indiscriminate missile and drone 
attacks on civilian targets in Kyiv, including children; Putin's 
continued cowardly jailing of anyone in Russia who dares to speak out 
against him or his illegal war, including Vladimir Kara-Murza, Alexei 
Navalny, and more than 500 other innocent political prisoners; the 
outrageous hostage-taking of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan 
Gershkovich, whose only offense is daring to report the truth about the 
rot inside Putin's Russia.
  The prisons in Russia are not large enough to hide the truth forever.
  Last week, Yevgeny Prigozhin, leader of the paramilitary Wagner Group 
and a longtime ally of Putin, said publicly that instead of 
``demilitariz[ing]'' Ukraine, Russia's failed invasion has instead 
turned Ukraine's military into one of the ``most powerful in the 
world.''
  That was a quote from the head of the Wagner Group.
  Let me reiterate on the Senate floor for Vladimir Putin and his 
enablers: You have lost the war in Ukraine. Global opposition to your 
illegal war is growing. Your legacy will be one of an indicted war 
criminal and a failed leader who weakened his nation, strengthened and 
expanded NATO, robbed countless Ukrainians of their futures, and sent 
thousands of Russian conscripts to their graves for your political 
hubris. And despite your transparent and petty attempts to divide 
America, the world's democracies stand against Russian tyranny.
  The overwhelming majority in Congress of both political parties 
understand this. President Biden understands it. Putin's warped Soviet 
nostalgia blinds him to the warning of President Ronald Reagan, who 
said: ``It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history,'' 
accurately predicting its place on the ash heap of history among other 
tyrannies. The Soviet Union failed. So will Vladimir Putin's bloody and 
delusional attempt to resurrect it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remembering Robert Zimmer

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to 
speak about Robert Zimmer, the former president of the University of 
Chicago.
  Barbara and I, first, want to express our condolences to Shadi, his 
wife, and their three children.
  President Zimmer's time at the University of Chicago was defined by 
his relentless defense of freedom of expression. As a result of his 
commitment, the University of Chicago remains a place where diversity 
of viewpoint is always welcome, and the enforcement of that welcoming 
is very sincere.
  In 2014, President Zimmer appointed the university's Committee on 
Freedom of Expression. That committee issued what is called the Chicago 
Principles, which declare the importance of uncensored thought and 
inquiry in the university experience.
  I think it was also common for the president to make sure that a 
letter went out to first-year students. I have never read the complete 
letter, but in reading about it, I get the impression that the letter 
said to those first-year students what this policy from the Committee 
on Freedom of Expression was all about and that if you have to worry 
about having safe spaces or if you are worried about being confronted 
by somebody you might disagree with because of their ideology, then 
don't come to this university.
  But President Zimmer's impact is not limited just to that one 
university; his courage in pushing for free speech on college campuses 
has been felt nationwide. In my opinion, it is not as much as it should 
be, but still he has made a big impact. The Chicago Principles have now 
been adopted in some form by over 80 colleges and universities. You can 
see that the number 80 is small compared to the thousands of colleges 
and universities and community colleges we have in our country. That 
doesn't mean there are not more than 80 colleges that would have the 
principle of freedom of expression, but we know that 80 colleges have 
adopted the Chicago approach.
  President Zimmer and the principles he stood for are absolutely right 
because college is a place for learning, not for coddling. Campus, 
then, should be a place where ideas run rampant. After all, you go to 
college to prepare yourself for life after college. Where

[[Page S1820]]

you go for a job or anyplace else, there are probably not these safe 
spaces that some students think they have to have while they are at 
various universities for a period of 4 years out of a possible life 
through the other 60 years they are going to live, on average, after 
they get out of college.
  That mission is not possible if colleges only pursue the appearance 
of diversity instead of real diversity. That just isn't diversity from 
the standpoint of ethnicity, religion, color, gender; it is about 
diversity of thought and the willingness to discuss those diverse 
opinions among people so they can learn from each other and respect 
each other.
  In recent years, campus administrators have retreated from free 
speech, even punishing professors who try to do the right thing by 
having honest discussions about issues of any kind, particularly 
controversial issues.
  So we need students, we need professors, and we need alumni willing 
to sound the alarm about the chilling of debate on our university and 
college campuses. Most importantly, we need campus leaders like 
President Zimmer who will stand up for freedom of expression in the 
face of diversity. Without President Zimmer and his principles, our 
next generation will be taught regurgitation, not independent thought.
  We ought to honor his legacy by advocating for learning and free 
expression and respecting people's opinions whom you might disagree 
with, even being willing to sit down and discuss with those people you 
might disagree with.
  So with his death, I think he is going to be sorely missed, and I 
hope that college presidents across the country can learn from his 
example.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Debt Ceiling

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, $32 trillion--it is a colossal sum 
burdening every single American taxpayer. It is a tangible reflection 
of the prodigious debt accumulated over many decades of reckless 
spending.
  Now, the ramifications of our bloated national debt are far-reaching, 
felt in the daily lives of hard-working families crushed under the 
weight of relentless inflation. The prices of everyday necessities 
continue to rise, eroding purchasing power and placing an intolerable 
burden on the shoulders of every American family. The staggering figure 
ought to jolt us from our complacency, send shivers down our spines, 
and compel us to confront the dire consequences of Congress's 
longstanding recklessness when it comes to fiscal matters.
  Amidst the gravity of our Nation's current predicament, we find 
ourselves standing at a precipice, a pivotal moment where our choices 
today will inevitably shape our economic outlook tomorrow and for years 
and, in fact, decades to come. The burden of our national debt and the 
relentless grip of inflation have placed us at this critical juncture, 
demanding nothing less than a resolute and visionary response.
  Regrettably, the lopsidedly negotiated Fiscal Responsibility Act, as 
it is called, heralded by Speaker McCarthy and President Biden, fails 
to provide the respite our Nation desperately needs. Rather than 
offering substantive solutions to tackle the root causes of our fiscal 
woes, it appears to be a palliative pill. It is a bad deal for America, 
a missed opportunity to confront our challenges, an abdication of our 
responsibility to protect Americans' economic security and well-being.
  We can and must do better. We must abandon the complacency that has 
brought us to this point and chart a new course, a course that values 
something approaching fiscal sanity. We can no longer afford to settle 
for half measures or short-term fixes, and we desperately need a 
comprehensive and responsible plan, one that addresses the root causes 
of our fiscal predicament, curtails the bloated bureaucracy, and 
empowers American families once again to thrive.
  It is time to go back to the drawing board. Failure to do so and to 
do so right now, at this very moment, is to ignore the lessons of 
history. Nations that neglect their fiscal health often face economic 
calamity and social upheaval as a result. We are obligated to ourselves 
and to future generations of Americans to break free from this cycle of 
debt and inflation and forge a path of prosperity and sustainability.
  I talk about it in terms of the cycle of inflation and debt because 
the two go hand in hand. We cause inflation when we spend more than we 
have and spend more than we should. That makes every dollar that 
Americans earn, save, or have previously saved purchase less.
  So I must express my profound disappointment over the Orwellian-named 
Fiscal Responsibility Act. In harsh juxtaposition to the Limit, Save, 
Grow Act, the ambitious plan by the House of Representatives, the 
meager offerings of the Biden-McCarthy deal are profound.
  First, House GOP leadership proclaims that the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act will save $1.5 trillion over a 10-year period through the 2-year 
caps deal. But, see, therein lies the deception. The supposed savings 
are largely--in fact, almost entirely--illusory. The bill contains a 
mandatory 2-year caps deal for discretionary spending; but, in reality, 
the spending limits for the other 4 years, the out years, are 
unenforceable and easily waived--in fact, easily ignored.
  It is a shell game of sorts, a carefully orchestrated act to create 
the false illusion of savings. But history has shown us that no caps 
deal has ever been fully enforced against future appropriations. The 
most recent and relevant example of this may well be Congress, in its 
decision in the Budget Control Act of 2011, to impose statutory caps on 
discretionary spending and then to raise those caps on four separate 
occasions, in a bipartisan fashion, over the decade that followed the 
adoption of those caps, completely negating the stated purpose of that 
bill.
  And unlike the BCA's 10-year statutory caps, all of which were, in 
fact, statutory, the FRA has only 2 years, which can be maneuvered 
around themselves. Just 2 years of statutory caps; that is all. You can 
get around those, too. It is just a little bit harder. But after those 
first 2 years, it is not even a difficult thing because these aren't 
statutory caps at this point.
  It is a largely symbolic and ultimately feckless gesture. Yet House 
leadership wants us in the Senate to rubberstamp a mammoth increase of 
$4 trillion in new debt in exchange for supposedly $1.5 trillion of 
claimed deficit reduction, the vast majority--in fact, the overwhelming 
share--of which will never be realized.
  I am confident stating that, predicting it, right now. This is a pipe 
dream, and they know it.
  And what did they demand in return for raising the debt ceiling, 
effectively by $4 trillion? What did they extract to ensure that this 
colossal sum, once borrowed, wouldn't go unchecked? A meager $12 
billion, a drop in the ocean compared to our Nation's monumental 
burden. And that is a best-case scenario.
  Considering that rather than raising the debt ceiling by a specific 
amount--which, I think, is the right way to do this and the way that 
Congress has usually done this in the past--the deal raises it; it 
suspends the debt ceiling altogether through January 1, 2025. It grants 
the Treasury authority to issue debt without any numerical limit to 
restrain its appetite. It is a carte blanche, a blank check of sorts, 
for the government to spend, to borrow more money without 
accountability.
  This deal begs the question: With Republicans like these, who needs 
Democrats?
  We deserve better. We deserve a deal that genuinely reflects the 
urgency of our economic challenges and delivers meaningful results. To 
grant such a colossal debt ceiling increase while settling for a mere 
$12 billion in immediate savings is also an act of fiscal 
irresponsibility and betrayal of the trust placed in us by those who 
elected us.
  Equally disheartening is the state of work requirements within the 
deal. These work requirements were supposed to be part of the deal and 
a

[[Page S1821]]

meaningful change in the law and supposed to help things get better, 
help us not spend as much money, help people get out of poverty, help 
make sure that we don't have to come back to the well just 18 months or 
so from now and raise the debt ceiling yet again.
  Limit, Save, Grow championed a robust approach, acknowledging the 
importance of promoting self-sufficiency through work requirements. In 
contrast, this swamp deal that we are actually facing offers only token 
requirements, riddled with exemptions and phaseouts. It is a farce of 
sorts. It is a charade that perpetuates the vicious cycle of 
entitlement, leaving countless Americans trapped in the clutches of 
dependency.
  Limit, Save, Grow adds significant work requirements for TANF, food 
stamps, and for Medicaid. This bill strips the Medicaid work 
requirements altogether. With respect to TANF, arguably, it doesn't do 
much at all, if anything. With respect to food stamps, according to 
some figures that we are studying from CBO, it arguably costs more 
money than it saves.
  In matters of fiscal prudence, Limit, Save, Grow stood firm in its 
determination to repeal the Democrats' $1.2 trillion Inflation 
Reduction Act. Talk about Orwellian names, that is one for you. Yet in 
its lamentable capitulation, the McCarthy-Biden deal preserves every 
cent of the Inflation Reduction Act, leaving our Nation mired in a 
quagmire of unsustainable and expensive policies that have done 
anything but reduce inflation.
  In fact, when you go throwing around trillion-dollar increments that 
you don't have, that is what it does cost. It is more inflation, and 
that is, indeed, what it has caused.
  Now, the consequences of this surrender in this bill are grave. If 
enacted, this bill would grant President Biden everything without 
meaningful safeguards or provisions to address the pressing issues.
  While it may be hailed as some sort of triumph of bipartisanship, the 
American people will ultimately bear the brunt of its shortcomings. You 
see, not everything that is bipartisan is, in fact, in the interest of 
the American people.
  Bipartisanship and compromise are an inevitability in anything that 
moves through the U.S. Congress. Some work for the benefit of the 
American people, but when a small handful of Members of Congress get 
together and decide what will be easiest for them, what will work best 
for them, what will make them look the best, without due regard to how 
it will impact the American people, that is not compromise. That is 
better described as collusion.
  Look, it is the American people who will bear the brunt of this bill 
with the implementation of President Biden's half-trillion-dollar 
student loan plan--a plan which now stands as a testament to President 
Biden's misplaced priorities, a millstone around the neck of hard-
working individuals who will never benefit from such largesse.
  It is a stark reminder that, while the government claims to champion 
the cause of equality and opportunity, it is very often the very 
policies it enacts that perpetuate inequality and hinder genuine 
progress. The hard-working veterans, the diligent plumbers, and 
countless others are made to shoulder the weight of others' degrees--
often, degrees of people who now earn a whole lot of money--while 
relegating their own aspirations and dreams to the sidelines. It is a 
profound injustice when we shift the burden of personal choices and 
individual responsibilities onto those who have already toiled and 
sacrificed.
  That is what we are voting for with this bill. We are saying that it 
is OK to force those who labor in essential trades to bear the 
financial burden of others' educational pursuits.
  This is a patently unfair and boldfaced patronage racket. And, like 
all good rackets, you need your strong-armed collector, and this 
administration found theirs in the IRS.
  The egregious expansion of the IRS is epitomized by the Democrats' 
allocation of $80 billion to this bloated Agency with a demonstrated 
history of unethical targeting of conservative nonprofits, among 
others.
  The compromise reached between Biden and McCarthy, which retains 98 
percent of the IRS expansion--98 percent--is nothing short of a 
surrender, an anticipatory capitulation of sorts. It is a thing that is 
going to cause more problems.
  And so armed with a hefty budget and a woke agenda, the IRS will 
become an even stronger instrument of political bias and partisan 
manipulation. The merging of ideology and bureaucracy poses a grave 
threat to the fabric of our Republic, eroding the trust and confidence 
that should underpin our tax system.

  It might be true that this bill attempts to claw back some of the 
unspent COVID funds and the CDC global health funding. But while they 
point to rescinding roughly $28 billion in unspent COVID funds, we must 
acknowledge that much of that will merely offset spending increases 
elsewhere. This deal falls woefully short, failing to seize this 
opportunity to maximize the potential of these unutilized resources.
  Perhaps the cherry on top of this deal from hell is the glaring 
omission of an essential regulatory reform measure, called the REINS 
Act. The REINS Act is a proposal. It is an acronym. It stands for 
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny. Limit, Save, Grow, 
the debt ceiling bill passed by the House about a month ago, 
incorporated the REINS Act, which seeks to ensure that every major 
regulation put forth by a Federal Agency has to pass through 
congressional scrutiny. It has to be affirmatively enacted by Congress.
  This is already required by the Constitution. The very first 
operative provision of the Constitution--the first clause, the first 
section of the first article--says: ``All legislative powers herein 
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall 
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''
  Legislative powers or the power to make law--article I, section 7 
makes it clear that this is the only path to do it. Article I, section 
7 reiterates and builds upon the legislative powers clause of article 
I, section 1 by saying that, in order to pass a law--a Federal law--any 
Federal law must become law only after it has been passed by the House 
and the Senate and presented to the President for signature, veto, or 
acquiescence. You cannot make a Federal law otherwise.
  Executive branch Agencies have been getting around this for a long 
time with the assistance, sadly, of Congress. Congress has delegated, 
increasingly, lawmaking power to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats--
people who don't work for the American people, who can't be fired by 
them. This is a big problem.
  Now, look, Limit, Save, Grow incorporated the REINS Act, and that 
would have done a lot of good by subjecting this lawmaking power to 
elected lawmakers to give them--us, the people elected to make laws--
the final say.
  We were finally going to close that loop and say that Agencies can 
write laws that would be considered proposed bills--bill proposals--
within Congress, but only Congress can enact them.
  They are laws--laws made by the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats 
who have no constitutional lawmaking authority--that would not, under 
the REINS Act, be self-executing. Congress would have to be the 
lawmaker, as the Constitution already makes clear.
  The REINS Act really is about so much more than regulatory reform. It 
is about accountability to the public, the same kind of accountability 
that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers when they wrote article I, 
section 1 and article I, section 7. It is about the republican form of 
government as a whole. It is about representative government, about 
people through the democratic process being able to elect those who 
will create laws to which they will become subject. It is about the 
American people being put adequately on notice as to what their legal 
responsibilities and obligations are.
  James Madison, in Federalist 62, spoke somewhat presciently when he 
wrote:

       It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are 
     made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous 
     that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot 
     be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are 
     promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man 
     who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be 
     tomorrow.

  We are now suffering through a circumstance where not only are our 
laws

[[Page S1822]]

so voluminous, complex, and ever-changing that we can't read them and 
understand what they require of us, but they weren't even written by 
men and women of our own choosing. This is wrong. This is as big of a 
miscarriage of justice as exists in this country. This is unreviewable 
legislative discretion of the sort that has historically been reserved 
for despots and tyrants.
  Despotism and tyranny to this degree, in this unique way, exist in 
America today in our executive branch Agencies. Limit, Save, Grow was 
going to address this through the REINS Act. But, sadly, that provision 
was removed from this measure.
  Now, the sudden excuse for this glaring exclusion--something that was 
really important to Republicans and should be really important to 
Republicans and Democrats and everyone else--is that the deal imposes 
an administrative pay-as-you-go provision, or pay-go, as it is known. 
However, this is easily waived. It is bereft of any significant 
congressional role in the regulatory process.
  Let's not be naive to the realities of implementation. This process 
will be artfully manipulated in the hands of the Biden-appointed 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
  The bureaucrats--the masters of their bureaucratic chicanery--will 
exploit every nook and cranny of the legislation, every nook and cranny 
that generates fake direct savings. The noble intentions behind this 
provision will be buried beneath a mountain of smoke and mirrors.
  So when you read section 263 of the Biden-McCarthy deal, you will see 
this regulatory pay-go measure. But if you keep reading and you get to 
section 265, you see that section 265 destroys it. It takes it away. It 
effectively nullifies it. A restriction on a government actor that is 
then in a subsequent section, 265, given the power to exempt herself 
from that restriction is nothing at all. See, within the fine print of 
that loophole, in section 265, is language that renders the entire 
endeavor of regulatory pay-as-you-go completely toothless. The OMB 
Director possesses complete waiver authority. If she deems it 
``necessary for program delivery,'' then she can circumvent the 
provisions that purport to rein in the excesses of the bureaucratic 
machinery--section 263. This is akin to placing the fox in charge of 
the henhouse and then granting the fox discretion to determine when the 
rules apply and when they can be conveniently cast aside. If the fox 
wants to consume the hen, the fox will, if the fox deems it necessary 
and appropriate.

  Don't believe me?
  Well, it didn't take long yesterday for the OMB Director to say the 
quiet part out loud. When asked about the PAYGO waiver authority 
included in the Biden-McCarthy deal, OMB Director Shalanda Young said:

       If that waiver is deemed necessary to make sure President 
     Biden's agenda is carried forward, we're going to use that 
     authority.

  Translation. This means one thing: The regulatory PAYGO measure means 
nothing. It is worth no more than the paper it is printed on. Less than 
that, in fact. Nothing. It does nothing.
  So if you are tempted to vote for this, perhaps taking some comfort 
in the idea that this is going to rein in regulatory excesses, please 
look elsewhere for comfort. It does not exist here.
  What irks me is not just that the REINS Act measure was removed--that 
is plenty irksome in and of itself. It shouldn't have been removed. We 
should have insisted it be in there. If some objected to it, we should 
have at least insisted it be in there as long as this debt ceiling 
issuance Mardi Gras remains in effect. It should be there. If you are 
going to take that out and replace it with the regulatory PAYGO 
measure, don't claim that it is real when, in fact, it is fake.
  This is appalling. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?
  Look, they are not even pretending to negotiate in good faith. In 
fact, while Republicans claim that this is a big victory for 
Republicans, meanwhile, the Democrats are doing everything they can to 
hide their excitement over this deal. Representative Jamaal Bowman, a 
Democrat from New York, Member of the House of Representatives who is 
listed as undecided, said President Biden ``kicked McCarthy's butt.'' 
Fair point; he did.
  Madam President, in contemplating the magnitude--the sheer weight, 
volume, mass of our national debt, a colossal sum of $32 trillion--$32 
trillion that will soon escalate to $36 trillion under this awful 
deal--one cannot help but be seized by a sense of awful foreboding. 
This staggering figure should serve as a haunting reminder of the 
consequences of our profligate ways, a testament to the grave 
irresponsibility that has permeated our political landscape for decades 
far too long.
  Instead of confronting this existential threat head-on, this deal is 
racked with complacency and false, cowardly compromise--placating the 
disconnected without addressing the root of the problem. It is the 
child of uncertainty, born out of cowardly fear of confrontation and 
lack of conviction; and it represents the victory of expediency over 
integrity. I cannot support it, and I will emphatically vote no absent 
material changes that will render this bill something other than what 
it is--a fake response to burdensome debt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, my friend from Utah would be happy to 
know not everybody in the Democratic caucus thinks this is a great 
victory for President Biden. In fact, the original debt ceiling 
legislation that Republicans passed in the House would have, over a 10-
year period, made unconscionable cuts to programs that working 
families, that children, the sick, the elderly, and the poor 
desperately need. It is a totally unconscionable piece of legislation 
passed by the Republican House.
  And the best thing that I can say or that I think can be said about 
the current deal on the debt ceiling is that it could have been much 
worse. Instead of making massive cuts to healthcare, education, 
childcare, nutrition assistance, and other vital programs that low-
income and working-class families depend upon over the next decade, 
this bill proposes to make modest cuts to these programs over a 2-year 
period.
  This bill will also prevent an economic catastrophe by extending the 
debt ceiling until January 1, 2025, when, by the way, we will have to 
go through this absurd process once again.
  Having said that--having said and made clear that what we have before 
us is far, far better than what emanated in the Republican House, I 
have to make clear that I cannot vote for this bill.
  At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, at a time when the 
people on top have never had it so good while the middle class shrinks 
and millions of working-class families live in desperation, I cannot, 
in good conscience, vote for a bill that takes vital nutrition 
assistance away from women, infants, children, and seniors while 
refusing to ask billionaires to start paying their fair share of taxes.
  So, again, not as bad by any means as the bill passed in the House, 
this bill will cut nutrition programs for kids and the elderly; and, 
yet, the billionaires continue to laugh all the way to the bank. They 
don't have to pay a nickel more in taxes. I cannot, in good conscience, 
vote for a bill that makes it harder for working families to afford the 
outrageously high price of childcare, housing, and healthcare while 
making it easier for the wealthiest people and most profitable 
corporations in America to cheat on their taxes.

  It is no great secret that the people on top and the large 
corporations with all their lawyers and accountants know how to avoid 
their fair share of taxes.
  Last year, we took a step forward to put money into the IRS to 
address that. This bill makes cuts in that effort.
  At a time when climate change is, by far, the most existential threat 
that this country has perhaps--and this world have ever faced, I 
cannot, in good conscience, vote for a bill that makes it easier for 
fossil fuel companies to pollute and destroy the planet by fast-
tracking the disastrous Mountain Valley Pipeline. When the future of 
the world and the lives of our kids and grandchildren is literally at 
stake, we must have the courage to stand up to the fossil fuel industry 
and tell them and the politicians they sponsor that the future of this 
planet is more important than their short-term profits.
  At a time when we spend more on the military than the next 10 nations 
combined, I cannot, in good conscience,

[[Page S1823]]

vote for a bill that increases funding for the bloated Pentagon and 
large defense contractors who continue to make huge profits by fleecing 
American taxpayers with impunity. Let me remind my colleagues that the 
Pentagon, which now gets over $800 billion a year--a year--is the only 
Federal Agency that cannot pass an independent audit or account for 
trillions of dollars in spending.
  At a time when the pharmaceutical industry is charging the American 
people, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, 
I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a bill that does nothing to take 
on the greed of the big drug companies that are bankrupting Medicare 
and cancer patients while spending tens of billions on stock buybacks 
and dividends. If the United States paid the same price for 
prescription drugs as paid in Europe, we could cut Medicare spending by 
approximately $1 trillion over 10 years. But, apparently, we don't have 
quite the courage to take on the powerful pharmaceutical industry. It 
is easier to take on children and the elderly.
  At a time when over 45 million Americans are drowning in student 
debt, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a bill that eliminates the 
moratorium on student loan payments that has been a lifeline to 
millions of working-class families during the pandemic.
  Deficit reduction cannot just be about cutting programs that working 
families, that children, the sick, the elderly, and the poor depend 
upon. They are the easy targets. You see, they don't have any lobbyists 
here. They don't make big campaign contributions. They don't wine and 
dine Members of the House and Senate. They are an easy target. We can 
cut programs that working-class and low-income people depend upon.
  But when it comes to demanding that the billionaire class and 
profitable corporations start paying their fair share of taxes, when it 
comes to reining in out-of-control military spending and taking on the 
very powerful military industrial complex, when it comes to reducing 
the price of prescription drugs and taking on the pharmaceutical 
industry, and when it comes to ending billions of dollars in corporate 
welfare that goes to the fossil fuel industry and other corporate 
interests, well, that is another story. That is not something we are 
comfortable in doing. They are too powerful; make too many campaign 
contributions; have too many lobbyists. It is easy to go after the weak 
and the vulnerable.
  The fact of the matter is that, in my judgment, this bill is totally 
unnecessary. The President of the United States has the authority and 
the ability to eliminate the debt ceiling today by invoking the 14th 
Amendment. I look forward to the day when he exercises that authority 
and puts an end, once and for all, to the outrageous actions of the 
extreme rightwing to hold our entire economy hostage in order to get 
what they want.


                              H.J. Res. 45

  Madam President, I would like to say a few words on another subject, 
and that is the effort here on the part of some of my Republican 
colleagues to repeal President Biden's student debt plan.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 45 that we will be voting on 
tomorrow. This resolution would repeal President Biden's plan to 
provide up to $20,000 in student debt relief to over 40 million 
Americans who desperately need that relief.
  Almost 90 percent of this student debt relief would go to Americans 
who make less than $75,000 a year. So anytime you hear Republicans say 
this is going to the wealthy, that ain't the case. Ninety percent of 
student debt relief goes to Americans who earn less than $75,000 a 
year. These are working-class people who are struggling to pay the 
rent--rents which are, in many cases, skyrocketing. They are struggling 
to pay for groceries. They are struggling to pay for the basic 
necessities of life. And they desperately need this relief.
  Despite what our Republican colleagues have told us, President 
Biden's student debt relief plan does not benefit the wealthy. In fact, 
the top 5 percent of American households would not see a nickel in 
benefits under Biden's student debt relief plan--not one nickel.
  And let us be clear. Not only would this resolution that we vote upon 
tomorrow deny up to $20,000 in student debt relief to over 40 million 
Americans, it would retroactively overturn the moratorium in student 
loan payments during the pandemic.
  What does that mean? It means that tens of millions of Americans 
would be forced to pay back thousands of dollars in student loans and 
interest that were paused during the pandemic.
  This is a program that started under President Trump and was 
continued under President Biden. Further, this resolution would 
retroactively claw back student debt that was previously canceled for 
more than 260,000 teachers, nurses, veterans, firefighters, librarians, 
and other public servants who successfully completed 10 years of public 
service. That would be absolutely unacceptable.
  Over and over again, I have heard my Republican colleagues tell us 
that the time has come for younger Americans to pay for their college 
education just like they did 40 or 50 or 60 years ago. Well, I have got 
news for my Republican colleagues.
  Back in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, even 1980s, the cost of a college 
education, housing, healthcare, childcare, and the basic necessities of 
life were a heck of a lot cheaper then than they are today.
  When I was a young man, I attended Brooklyn College in 1959. Do you 
know how much I paid for tuition during that 1 year? Zero, at a very 
good college. And that was not unusual. The reality is that back then, 
tuition at many of our Nation's public colleges and universities was 
either free or virtually free. Young people don't know that, but that 
is, in fact, the case.
  The University of California system, the largest public college 
system in the country, considered to be the crown jewel of public 
higher education in America, did not begin charging tuition until the 
1980s.
  In 1970, the average tuition at a four-year public university in 
America was just $814 a year. Today, it costs more than $9,300 a year. 
And the total cost of attending a public college or university in 
America--including room and board--is over $25,000.
  In 1978, a student could get a minimum wage job in the summer and 
fully pay for a year of tuition at virtually any public college or 
university in America. Today, the only way that millions of working-
class Americans can get a college education is to take out student 
loans with very high interest rates and graduate with tens and tens of 
thousands of dollars in debt. And if you go to graduate school, we are 
talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. Talk to medical 
students who will tell you they are going to graduate $4- or $500,000 
in debt.
  But it is not just the price of a college education that has soared. 
In 1970, the median cost of a home was $188,000 in real inflation-
adjusted dollars. Today, it costs $497,000. And that is why many young 
people today are unable to afford to buy the kind of home that their 
parents were able to purchase.
  In 1970, the average monthly rent was $805 in real dollars. Today, it 
costs nearly $2,000 a month. Over 40 years ago, a Federal Pell grant 
paid for over 80 percent of tuition, fees, room and board at a four-
year public college. The Pell grant paid 80 percent. But today, because 
of massive cutbacks in education, Pell grants cover less than a third 
of those expenses.
  Add all of that up and you understand why more than 45 million 
Americans are drowning in over $1.7 trillion in student debt.
  So when my Republican colleagues in their sixties, seventies, and 
eighties lecture young people about the need to pay off their student 
debt, to get out of their parents' basement and to buy a home, just the 
way it used to be, I am afraid that they are way out of touch with the 
economic reality that so many young people are forced to live in today.
  Further, my Republican colleagues want you to believe that it is just 
too expensive and too unfair to provide up to $20,000 in debt relief to 
a Pell grant recipient with an income of less than $60,000 a year--just 
too much. Can't afford it. We have big national debt; how can we 
possibly pay for it?
  Well, actually, that is a pretty funny argument, given where many of 
my Republican colleagues are coming from. I remember not so long ago 
that my Republican colleagues had no problem

[[Page S1824]]

voting to give away over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 
percent and large corporations when Donald Trump was President--without 
paying for it. No concern about the national debt back then when it 
comes to tax breaks for the very wealthiest people and largest 
corporations.
  My Republican colleagues had no problem voting for a $700 billion 
bailout for Wall Street when George W. Bush was President--without 
paying for it. Hey, we have to bail out the crooks on Wall Street. Not 
a problem; don't worry about the deficit; we have to do it.
  My Republican colleagues had no problem with voting for an $858 
billion budget for the Pentagon this year, despite the fact that the 
Department of Defense is the only Federal Agency in America that cannot 
pass an independent audit and cannot account for trillions of dollars 
in spending. Don't worry about the deficit; don't worry about the 
national debt. Can't afford to help young people struggling with their 
student debt. Can't do that. But we can pump all kinds of money into 
the military, an institution which is wasting huge amounts of money and 
has not been able to do an independent audit.
  But now, my Republican colleagues want you to believe--after giving 
huge tax breaks to the rich and large corporations and spending 
unbelievable amounts of money on the military, they want you to believe 
that we cannot afford to provide $20,000 in student debt relief to a 
Pell grant recipient who is struggling to put a roof over his or her 
head, pay for childcare, or put food on the table.
  Let me be as clear as I can be: If we can afford to provide trillions 
of dollars in tax breaks and corporate welfare to the wealthy and 
powerful, we can and we must cancel student debt. If we can afford to 
provide a $1.4 billion tax break to the Koch family--Charles Koch 
family, one of the wealthiest families in America, worth $120 billion--
we can afford to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for a struggling, 
working-class college graduate.

  And my understanding is that within a few weeks after all the 
discussion about the national debt and how we are going to deal with 
that, my Republican colleagues in the House are going to come up with 
another bill to give even more tax breaks to the people on top.
  If Donald Trump could take Executive action to pause student debt 
payments when he was in office, please don't tell me that President 
Biden cannot take the same action to cancel student debt for working 
families who desperately need it.
  Let's be clear: Canceling student debt is the right thing to do, not 
only from a moral and economic perspective, it is precisely what the 
American people want us to do.
  According to a recent Fox News poll, 62 percent of the American 
people support canceling at least $20,000 in student debt for 
individuals making $125,000 a year or less. The American people 
understand that we cannot continue to crush our young generation with a 
mountain of debt for doing the right thing--getting a college 
education. A vote for this resolution would deny relief to over 40 
million Americans across every State and every Congressional district.
  A vote for this resolution would reinstate tens of billions of 
dollars in interest charges and loans that have already been canceled 
for teachers, firefighters, and other public service workers throughout 
America. We cannot allow that to happen. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________