[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3036-H3044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
  DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RELATING TO ``WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS OF 
                        FEDERAL STUDENT LOANS''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 
7, 2023, the unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
veto message of the President on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) 
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 Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of June 7, 2023, at 
page H2775.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the veto message of H.J. Res. 45.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding President 
Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 45, a Congressional Review Act resolution 
nullifying the Biden administration's attempt to circumvent the will of 
the Congress and the role of the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, President Biden's radical plan to cancel up to $20,000 
in student debt via executive fiat is utter hogwash. The American 
people are not fooled by the deceptive, doctored-up talking points on 
student loans that the left has attempted to force-feed them over the 
past 2 years.
  Appealing words like ``forgiveness'' have been cast around 
innumerable times as if to imply that a massive student loan bailout is 
the equivalent of a sweepstakes giveaway.
  Here is a reality check for our colleagues across the aisle: There is 
no such thing as forgiveness.
  This entire scheme is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from 
those who willingly took on debt to those who did not or had the grit 
to pay off their loans.
  Two-thirds of this debt transfer plan would go to the top half of 
earners. It takes from those in the lower half of earners and gives to 
the upper half. It redistributes wealth, but from the bottom of our 
socioeconomic ladder to the top. The 87 percent of Americans who owe no 
Federal student debt are paying for the 13 percent who do.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle also claim that this 
transfer of wealth is about fairness. No, it is about sticking 
hardworking taxpayers with the tab and those who owe it walking away 
from it scot-free.
  Mr. Speaker, if this is not the textbook definition of limousine 
liberalism, I don't know what it is.
  What is more, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal 
Budget, inflation could rise by as much as 27 basis points if mass 
student debt cancellation is implemented. That means we could see an 
additional two rate hikes by the Federal Reserve because of this 
inflationary policy alone.
  To halt the biggest transfer of wealth from blue-collar workers to 
white-collar professionals in our Nation's history and to prevent any 
further extension of the student loan repayment pause, the House and 
Senate both passed H.J. Res. 45.
  Following the President's predictable veto, this resolution comes 
before the House again. We must continue to take a stand and defend the 
interests of hardworking citizens. As the institution that holds the 
power of the purse, it is our responsibility to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cut through the political noise 
that the left continues to gin up about so-called student loan 
forgiveness and vote in favor of overriding the President's veto on 
H.J. Res. 45.
  Fiscal responsibility must be given the due deference it deserves.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 
45, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, 43 million Americans are eligible for President Biden's 
student loan relief. That is about 100,000 people, on average, in each 
of our districts.
  Nearly 26 million borrowers in congressional districts all over the 
country have already applied for relief, including 16 million who had 
already been approved for relief prior to litigation stopping the 
process. H.J. Res. 45 seeks to deny these borrowers the relief that 
they were promised.
  To be clear, the people who would be impacted are not the wealthy and 
well-connected. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of the relief would go to 
borrowers earning less than $75,000 a year, and you are not even 
eligible if you are making more than $125,000. That is in stark 
contrast to the Trump tax scam where 80 percent of the benefits went to 
the

[[Page H3037]]

top 1 percent and corporations. For the top 1 percent, that is about 
half a million dollars.
  Moreover, my Republican colleagues refuse to acknowledge the serious 
questions that have been raised about how the resolution would actually 
be implemented, because under a Congressional Review Act resolution, 
you don't pick and choose which parts of the rule you are overturning, 
you have to overturn the whole rule, including the pause in student 
payments and the deferral of interest.
  Now, how do you unpause a payment that you were supposed to make many 
months ago? What is going to happen to all those interest payments that 
now have to be added back to those loans?
  What happens to the credits that participants in the Public Service 
Loan Forgiveness program were promised during those months?
  Are the firefighters and teachers and police officers and other 
public servants who may have already had their loans forgiven based on 
those credits, now back on the hook for additional payments?
  The reality is that H.J. Res. 45 would trigger a wave of 
delinquencies and defaults for most of our vulnerable borrowers. 
Intentionally or not, this resolution would create chaos for borrowers 
and their families, as well as loan servicers. The Congressional 
Research Service has confirmed that this chaos would be triggered by 
the retroactive application of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, anyone in this country who wants to take advantage of 
the benefits of a college education should be able to do so, not just 
the wealthy few. That is the way it used to be.
  Just several decades ago, the Pell grant covered 80 percent of the 
cost of attending a State college. Now it is less than 30 percent, and 
States are paying a much lower portion of the costs of State colleges 
than they used to.
  This proposal does nothing to help students, so I strongly urge my 
colleagues to oppose the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, President Biden 
ignored the will of this Congress and issued a veto message of my 
resolution, which would have nullified his reckless, unconstitutional, 
immoral student loan transfer scheme.
  As others have said, he is not trying to forgive student loans, he is 
trying to saddle unsuspecting taxpayers with the burden of paying for 
others' student loan debt.
  Republicans and Democrats should come together, as they have already 
done on a bipartisan basis, and send a strong message on congressional 
authority to the executive branch.
  Again, President Biden simply does not have the authority to forgive 
student loans, and thus, spend hundreds of billions of dollars, 
taxpayer dollars, hard-earned taxpayer dollars, as he transfers debt to 
those who did not incur it.
  The power of the purse belongs to the legislative branch. It belongs 
to the House of Representatives. I suspect the Supreme Court will 
confirm that if we don't override this veto.
  The President seems to even know this himself. When talking about 
student loan forgiveness on CNN just about a year ago, he said, ``I 
don't think I have the authority to do it by signing with a pen.''
  Student loan cancellation, again, doesn't make the debt go away. It 
transfers the costs from the borrowers to the taxpayers, those who 
never went to college, those who worked hard and paid off their student 
loans, or those who worked their way through school to avoid student 
loan debt.
  In fact, 60 percent of the constituents in my district do not have a 
college degree. Yet, the Biden administration wants them to have to pay 
for the college education of others, even those earning up to $250,000 
in a typical family, or a nontypical family, I should say.
  So we are going to make plumbers and welders and carpenters pay for 
the student loan debt for the high-income earners.
  There were a handful of Democrats in the House and the Senate who 
supported my resolution when it was first sent to the President's desk. 
I urge more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to act 
today to stop the unilateral actions of President Biden that are 
worsening the higher education financial crisis, unfairly transferring 
debt to those who didn't borrow it, and usurping the constitutional 
congressional authority of this House.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter 
from approximately 200 different organizations in opposition to this 
resolution.

                                                      May 8, 2023.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker 
     McCarthy, and Minority Leader Jeffries: The undersigned 261 
     organizations representing millions of students, workers, 
     people of color, veterans, people with disabilities, 
     consumers, and people of faith write in strong opposition to 
     bicameral efforts to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) 
     to overturn President Biden's actions to pause student loan 
     payments and provide student debt relief for low-income and 
     working-class Americans continuing to recover from the deadly 
     COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating economic fallout.
       In March, policymakers in the House and Senate unveiled a 
     CRA resolution to retroactively overturn the pause of federal 
     student loan payments and interest accrual, and President 
     Biden's debt relief plan. If successful, these CRA efforts 
     would immediately force tens of millions of borrowers into 
     abrupt and unplanned repayment with devastating effects, 
     including adding thousands of dollars of payments and 
     interest onto their loan balances. It will also force the 
     Department of Education to unwind loans forgiven under Public 
     Service Loan Forgiveness for first responders, nurses, 
     educators, servicemembers, and hundreds of thousands of other 
     public service workers across the country. These actions are 
     a clear attack on millions of the most vulnerable workers and 
     families who are still reeling from the devastating impact of 
     COVID-19.
       The President's student debt relief program and extension 
     of the pause on student loan payments are both plainly legal 
     and desperately needed by the more than 43 million borrowers 
     drowning in nearly $1.76 trillion in student loan debt. While 
     they await the Supreme Court's decision regarding the fate of 
     debt relief, tens of millions of borrowers and their families 
     are relying on the federal student loan payment pause as they 
     continue to face the economic aftershocks of the pandemic, 
     including high inflation. Data show that the payment pause 
     has been of greatest help to student loan borrowers who were 
     in financial distress even before the pandemic and has 
     successfully provided relief for those borrowers more than 
     other COVID-19 assistance programs. The payment pause is 
     broadly supported among individuals with and without student 
     loan debt and has been recognized as necessary by the Trump 
     and Biden Administrations alike. Further, the U.S. Secretary 
     of Education's use of the HEROES Act of 2003 to pause student 
     loan repayment falls within a long line of waiver and 
     modification authority exercised by prior administrations 
     without the invocation of the CRA, including by his immediate 
     predecessor for precisely the same purpose.
       Overturning the payment pause and forcing borrowers into 
     immediate repayment would have a devastating effect on 
     borrowers in every community. U.S. Department of Education 
     (ED) analysis demonstrates that a resumption of loan payments 
     without cancellation will spike delinquency and default rates 
     for the most financially vulnerable. Further, more than 26 
     million Americans applied for student debt cancellation in 
     the few weeks before it was shut down by partisan attacks in 
     the federal courts. This extraordinary engagement with 
     President Biden's cancellation plan is further evidence of 
     both the crushing burden this debt places on workers and 
     families from all walks of life and the promise of hope debt 
     cancellation offers for millions seeking an economic fresh 
     start.
       Recent polling illustrates that cancellation enjoys broad 
     popular support, underscoring the massive impact of student 
     debt across families, communities, and entire generations of 
     Americans, and the reasons for the program's popularity are 
     clear. Cancellation will also benefit many Americans who have 
     suffered the most throughout the pandemic--with 90 percent of 
     relief dollars going to borrowers earning below $75,000 a 
     year. These are student loan borrowers who are low- and 
     middle-income, borrowers with disabilities, public servants 
     who face high educational costs and low wages, women and 
     Black and Latino/a borrowers who come from low-wealth 
     families unable to foot the bill for higher education 
     upfront, and many more. Cancellation will help prevent a wave

[[Page H3038]]

     of defaults and delinquencies when repayment resumes and 
     ensure that these borrowers will be able to afford basics 
     like food, housing, and other necessities that pandemic-
     related financial hardship would otherwise put out of reach.
       The American people, the law, and the economic instability 
     of the present moment all emphasize the necessity of debt 
     cancellation and the continuation of the payment pause until 
     cancellation is realized. Policymakers now seeking to reverse 
     such critical relief through the CRA are ignoring the 
     economic needs of their own constituents and threatening our 
     nation's financial security. Congress should be acting to 
     improve the circumstances of the American people, not 
     attempting to thwart the President's efforts to ease the 
     financial pressure that so many are feeling.
       For these reasons, we strongly oppose the efforts to 
     overturn this relief through the Congressional Review Act 
     (H.J. Res. 45/S.J. Res. 22) and we urge you to consider the 
     harmful impact they would have on the millions of American 
     people and families who are in need of student loan debt 
     relief.
           Signed,
       1000 Women Strong, AACTE (American Association of Colleges 
     for Teacher Education), Accountable.US, Adasina Social 
     Capital, Affordable Homeownership Foundation Inc., AFGE, AFL-
     CIO, AFT Michigan, AFT, AFL-CIO, AFT-Wisconsin, AFT, AFL-CIO, 
     AKPIRG, Alabama State Association of Cooperatives, Alliance 
     for Justice, Amazon Labor Union, American Association of 
     University Professors, American Association of University 
     Women, American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), 
     American Psychological Association, Americans for Financial 
     Reform, Appleseed Foundation, Arkansas Community 
     Organizations, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (AFL-
     CIO), Associate Students of the University of California, 
     Berkeley, Associated Students of the University of Nevada, 
     Association of Flight Attendants-CWA.
       Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents 
     (ALAS), ASUCM External office, Autistic Women & Nonbinary 
     Network, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Blue Future, BPUF.org, 
     CAARMA, Cabrini Green Legal Aid, California Association of 
     Nonprofits (CalNonprofits), Campaign for College Opportunity, 
     CASH Campaign of Maryland, CEA.org, Center for American 
     Progress, Center for Economic Integrity, Center for LGBTQ 
     Economic Advancement & Research (CLEAR), Center for 
     Responsible Lending, CFPB Union NTEU 335, Chicago Foundation 
     for Women, Church Women United in New York State, Citizen 
     Action of Wisconsin, Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, Color 
     Of Change, Colorado AFL-CIO, Colorado Fiscal Institute, 
     Columbia Consumer Education Council Inc.
       Communication Workers of America (CWA), Communications 
     Workers of America District 7, Community Legal Aid Society, 
     Inc. (Delaware), Community Service Society of New York, 
     Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer 
     Federation of California, Consumer Reports, Consumers for 
     Auto Reliability and Safety, Council of Graduate Schools, 
     Council on Social Work Education, Debt Collective, Delaware 
     Community Reinvestment Action Council, Dream Defenders, 
     Economic Action Maryland, EMPath: Economic Mobility Pathways, 
     Empower our Future, End Citizens United/Let America Vote 
     Action Fund, Equal Justice Works, External Vice President 
     Office of the Associated Students of the University of 
     California, Irvine, Faith Action for All, Faith in Action, 
     Fayetteville Police Accountability Community Taskforce, 
     Feminist Campus, Feminist Majority Foundation.
       Formerly Incarcerated College Graduates Network, Forward 
     Montana, Fosterus, Freedom BLOC, Fresno Building Healthy 
     Communities, Friendship of Women, Inc., Hawaii State Teachers 
     Association, HEAL Food Alliance, Hildreth Institute, Hispanic 
     Federation, Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, 
     Indivisible, Instituto de Avance Latino CDC, International 
     Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Federation of 
     Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Jacksonville 
     Area Legal Aid, Inc., Justice in Aging, La Raza Centro Legal, 
     San Francisco, Latinos for Education, LCLAA, LeadMN--College 
     Students Connecting for Change, League of United Latin 
     American Citizens, Legal Action Chicago, Loan Repayment 
     Assistance Program of Minnesota, Louisiana Budget Project.
       Maine Center for Economic Policy, Maryland Center for 
     Collegiate Financial Wellness, Maryland Volunteer Lawyers 
     Service, Massachusetts Action for Justice, Massachusetts 
     Affordable Housing Alliance, Miami Valley Fair Housing 
     Center, Inc., Michigan Poverty Law Program, Minority Veterans 
     of America, Montana Fair Housing, Mountain State Justice, 
     MoveOn, NAACP, National Association of Pediatric Nurse 
     Practitioners, National Association of Secondary School 
     Principals (NASSP), National Association of Social Workers.
       National Association of Social Workers DC Metro Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Alabama Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Alaska Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Arizona Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Arkansas Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Colorado Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Connecticut Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Delaware Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Florida Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Georgia Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Guam Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Hawaii Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Idaho Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Illinois Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Indiana Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Iowa Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Kansas Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Kentucky Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Louisiana Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Maine Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Maryland Chapter; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Massachusetts 
     Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, Michigan 
     Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, Minnesota 
     Chapter.
       National Association of Social Workers, Mississippi 
     Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, Missouri 
     Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, Montana 
     Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, Nebraska 
     Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, Nevada 
     Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, New 
     Hampshire Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, 
     New Jersey Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, 
     New Mexico Chapter; National Association of Social Workers, 
     New York City Chapter; National Association of Social 
     Workers, New York State Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, North Carolina Chapter; National Association 
     of Social Workers, North Dakota Chapter; National Association 
     of Social Workers, Ohio Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, Oklahoma Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, Oregon Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, Pennsylvania Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, Puerto Rico Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, Rhode Island Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, South Carolina Chapter; National Association 
     of Social Workers, South Dakota Chapter; National Association 
     of Social Workers, Tennessee Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, Texas Chapter; National Association of Social 
     Workers, Utah Chapter; National Association of Social 
     Workers, Vermont Chapter; National Association of Social 
     Workers, Virgin Islands Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, Virginia Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, Washington Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, West Virginia Chaptes National Association of 
     Social Workers, Wisconsin Chapter; National Association of 
     Social Workers, Wyoming Chapter.
       National Association of Student Loan Lawyers, National 
     Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Law and Economic 
     Justice, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-
     income clients), National Consumers League, National 
     Education Association (NEA), National Employment Law Project, 
     National League for Nursing, National Legal Aid & Defender 
     Association, National Nurses United (NNU), National Urban 
     League, National Women's Law Center, National Young Farmers 
     Coalition, New Era Colorado, New Georgia Project Action Fund, 
     New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, New Jersey 
     Institute for Social Justice, New York Legal Assistance Group 
     (NYLAG), NextGen California, Nine Star Enterprises, Inc., 
     Nonprofit Professional Employees Union (NPEU), NTEU 
     Independent Staff Union, Office & Professional Employees 
     International Union (OPEIU), Office of the Nevada State 
     Treasurer, Ohio Student Association, Oregon Student 
     Association, Our Revolution, P Street.
       Passengers United, People's Action, Progressive Leadership 
     Alliance of Nevada, Protect All Children's Environment, 
     Psycharmor, Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK), Public Citizen, 
     Public Counsel, Public Good Law Center, Public Justice 
     Center, Public Law Center, Quiet Creek Herb Farm, Rachel 
     Carson Council, RAISE Texas, Red River Association of 
     Educators, Rise, RootsAction.org, Rural Coalition, Rutgers 
     University Student Assembly, School Social Work Association 
     of America, Secular Student Alliance, SEIU Local 500, Service 
     Employees International Union (SEIU), South Carolina 
     Appleseed Legal Justice Center, Stella's Girls Inc, Student 
     Borrower Protection Center.
       Student Debt Crisis, Center Student Loan Fund, Students 
     First Consulting, Students United, Suncoast NORML, 
     Superrnajority, Take on Wall Street, Texas Appleseed, Texas 
     State Teachers Association, The Arizona Students' 
     Association, The Bell Policy Center, The Education Trust, The 
     Hope Center at Temple University, THE ONE LESS FOUNDATION, 
     Towards Justice, UC-AFT, Local 1474, UCSB Associated Students 
     Senate External Affairs Committee, UCSB Lobby Corps.
       UFCW, UnidosUS, United Food and Commercial Workers Union 
     Local 400, United Way of Southern Cameron County, University 
     of Wisconsin Law School Consumer Law Clinic, University of 
     California Student Association, Vermont-NEA, Virginia Poverty 
     Law Center, Washington Council of Lawyers, Washington Office 
     of the Student Loan Advocate, We the 45 Million, Western 
     Center on Law and Poverty, Wisconsin Education Association 
     Council, Women Employed, Xavier

[[Page H3039]]

     University of Louisiana Student Government, Young 
     Invincibles, YWCA USA, Zero Debt Massachusetts.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to MAGA 
Republicans' attempts to override the President's veto and kill his 
student debt relief plan for millions of Americans. It is the height of 
hypocrisy.
  Listen to this: We didn't hear a peep from the Republicans when we 
bailed out the auto industry. They even nicknamed Detroit ``Government 
Motors''.
  We didn't hear a peep when they bailed out the airlines, or the 
farmers, and not a word when Members of Congress' PPP loans were 
forgiven.
  We bailed out Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank just the other 
day. No one said a mumbling word.
  When Republicans controlled both Chambers and the White House in 
2017, they gave billionaires $1.7 trillion in tax breaks. Shameful.
  But when we decide to bail out the students, the hardworking, want-
to-be-somebody college graduates who contribute to the economy, all 
hell breaks loose, and Republicans are outraged.
  I know people in their sixties and seventies who still owe student 
loan debt, and the principal has never changed. But I will keep 
fighting because every American should have a fair chance to succeed. 
It is a shame where our country's priorities lie.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleagues have said that this is overdrawn in terms of the way 
the CRA was written, the Congressional Review Act was written, and that 
it does too much. It gets into too many other things other than simply 
turning back the President's proposal. It deals with the debt and 
repayment of debt and those kinds of things.
  However, this CRA does not in any way tie the hands of Congress. It 
is up to us to pass the laws.
  What it does do is stop unelected bureaucrats from writing laws in 
the form of rules to implement laws passed by Congress.
  We didn't authorize the Department to do many of the things that it 
is doing. Congress did not do that, but it is doing many things.
  The CRA will stop the President's actions and some of these other 
things that are happening. We have the authority to write legislation, 
to do whatever we want to. If we want to write legislation to take care 
of debt and to take care of interest rates, we can do that.
  Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for not crying crocodile tears along with my 
colleagues on the accessibility to college in this country. College in 
this country is accessible to anyone who has the capable skills to 
attend, or taxpayers covering the costs of college for many who can pay 
for themselves and many who simply take advantage of generous taxpayers 
by skipping out on their loans.
  That is not what the help from taxpayers is supposed to do. It is 
supposed to help people gain a college education and go out there and 
be productive citizens, not renege on paying back their loans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the courtesies of 
the chairwoman and the courtesies of the ranking member because I am a 
recipient of student loans.
  As we proceed, the minimal amount that each person would get, in many 
instances, will be life-starting and life-igniting.
  This is not about deadbeat persons. This is about the excessive 
overburdening of our students in the 21st century who have been 
enrolled in schools with excessive fees and tuition.
  This was not bureaucrats making decisions. This was an analytic 
assessment of how heavy a burden it is on working persons with student 
debt. They were not able to make ends meet. Some were not able to 
purchase first homes. Some were not able to make payments on other 
necessities or raise their families.
  I am disappointed that we are at this point of trying to undo the 
President's thoughtful effort at giving Americans, all Americans across 
this country, an opportunity to continue their economic growth, to use 
their education in the service of others. Many of these persons are 
teachers. Many of these persons are from middle-class working families 
who are simply trying not to be in debt, and to be responsible for the 
obligation that they had to make in order to be, in instances, the 
first person that ever went to college in their family.
  Mr. Speaker, let me ask my colleagues to allow--in spite of court 
decisions, and this particular underlying motion--allow these people to 
begin their life and to contribute, contribute to the economic engine 
of this Nation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. These student loans were well invested because they 
are now, many of them, in the workforce.
  I want to add another component. Sometimes in life there are hills 
and valleys. Many of these individuals may have had some difficulty, 
may have been unemployed for a period of time. If you talk to these 
young people, or individuals that have had this student debt who are 
not young people anymore, some crisis in their life prevented them from 
making these payments. Mr. Speaker, it topples them. It just doesn't 
give them a moment to breathe. It is not that they are trying to 
default on the United States of America or be a deadbeat. We will be 
better off to give them another lifeline so they can contribute to this 
society.
  That is all this effort was. It was not frivolous. It was not 
selecting people who didn't want to pay. There was an application 
process, and it is a legitimate way of responding to the outcries of 
Americans and young people. Let us not approve this disapproval.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  First, I include in the Record letters from the American Federation 
of Teachers, another letter from multiple unions including the National 
Education Association, the AFL-CIO and AFSCME, a letter from Minority 
Vets, a letter from UnidosUS and the National Urban League, a letter 
from Third Way, a letter from the National Council of Nonprofits, and a 
letter from 23 various medical organizations, all in opposition to the 
legislation.

                              American Federation of Teachers,

                                                     May 22, 2023.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.7 million members 
     of the American Federation of Teachers, I strongly urge you 
     to reject H.J. Res. 45/S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution 
     providing for congressional disapproval of the Biden 
     administration actions to support student loan borrowers that 
     were announced in August of last year.
       This resolution would immediately force tens of millions of 
     borrowers into abrupt and unplanned repayment with 
     devastating effects, including adding thousands of dollars of 
     interest onto their loan balances. Proponents of the 
     resolution want you to believe that it is simply a method to 
     stop President Joe Biden's student debt cancellation of up to 
     $20,000 that would benefit 43 million borrowers, but the 
     implications are more severe. Passage of this resolution 
     would be particularly destructive for teachers, nurses, 
     servicemembers and firefighters eligible for Public Service 
     Loan Forgiveness.
       This resolution would force the U.S. Department of 
     Education to unwind loans forgiven under Public Service Loan 
     Forgiveness for nurses, educators, servicemembers and 
     hundreds of thousands of other public service workers across 
     the country. Retroactively repealing months of the payment 
     pause initially authorized by the Trump administration would 
     have far greater implications than thwarting Biden's 
     cancellation plan. It would force teachers, veterans and 
     nurses who finally received Public Service Loan Forgiveness 
     to write a check back to the Department of Education. This 
     resolution would reinstate the debt of more than 150,000 
     public service workers. On the heels of the pandemic, forcing 
     a nurse to pay back debt that was legally forgiven under a 
     bipartisan law is cruel.
       And the harm wouldn't stop there: More than 400,000 
     borrowers have received PSLF-qualifying payments under the 
     last payment pause of 2022, but this resolution would claw 
     back those benefits, setting back firefighters and educators' 
     eligibility for PSLF for many months.
       The COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating impact on American 
     workers, many of whom were already struggling to make ends 
     meet.

[[Page H3040]]

     Those workers' precarity and risk of delinquency on their 
     debt has severely worsened during the pandemic. Given the 
     long-term economic impacts of the pandemic, which continue to 
     drive workers out of public service, a permanent solution, 
     rather than a temporary deferment, is necessary.
       And the law is clear: Student debt cancellation falls 
     squarely within the statutory authority Congress granted the 
     secretaIy in the HEROES Act. Cancellation will help ensure 
     that millions of people are not left in a ``worse position'' 
     as to their loan payments due to the devastating COVID-19 
     pandemic.
       Tens of millions of families are struggling under the yoke 
     of $1.7 trillion in student debt. They eagerly await the 
     breathing room that student debt relief would bring, and 
     those struggling to get by will benefit the most. The extra 
     consideration in debt cancellation for Pell recipients 
     focuses like a laser on people in need. Taking away relief 
     that has already been granted to borrowers--the moratorium on 
     payments and interest--while the legal challenge wends its 
     way through the courts, and retroactively making them pay 
     what they cannot afford, is cruel. These borrowers are 
     teachers, firefighters, nurses and so many other dedicated 
     workers. Their current student debt is a far greater burden 
     than the debt carried by those of us who went to college long 
     ago. This means they have little or no wealth to start a 
     family, buy a car or a house, or make other major life 
     decisions, and it undermines plans they responsibly made 
     based on the situation at the time.
       Congress should be building on the Biden administration 
     actions, not undermining those actions. Throwing tens of 
     millions of student loan borrowers into chaos by 
     retroactively adding interest and missed payments to their 
     loan balances, while extending their student debt sentence, 
     would upend lives. That's the wrong decision. Congress must 
     oppose H.J. Res. 45/S.J. Res. 22.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Randi Weingarten,
     President, American Federation of Teachers.
                                  ____

                                                     May 19, 2023.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our members, who 
     strengthen, restore, and sustain communities across the 
     nation, we urge you to vote against the Congressional Review 
     Act resolution (H.J. Res. 45/S.J. Res. 22) to overturn 
     President Biden's student-debt relief program.
       For decades, our nation has strained under a student debt 
     crisis that holds our economy back and steals the dreams of 
     millions of Americans. This debt burden causes loan defaults 
     and drives up balances, delays marriages and the start of 
     families, and makes saving for the future impossible. Just as 
     significant as the financial fallout is how crushing student 
     loan debt is to the spirit. Nothing is quite as disheartening 
     as looking at a loan balance month after month that never 
     seems to diminish. For those who are closer than ever to a 
     life free from the albatross of student loan debt, the CRA 
     amounts to a direct attack on their hopes and dreams.
       Overturning President Biden's debt relief program will lead 
     to a dramatic spike in economic hardship--particularly for 
     the most vulnerable borrowers. It would throw 43 million 
     borrowers across every state and congressional district back 
     into a fundamentally broken and chaotic student loan system 
     when they can least afford it. The CRA is especially 
     concerning because unwinding the payment pause--a pause which 
     previously garnered bipartisan support--could force borrowers 
     to repay tens of billions of dollars in payments and 
     interest. It would even reinstate nearly 157,000 loans 
     forgiven through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, 
     because the payment pause provides accrual toward PSLF 
     without borrowers having to pay.
       The U.S. Department of Education's analysis indicates that 
     resuming student loan payments without cancellation will lead 
     to an unprecedented increase in delinquency and default for 
     those who are most vulnerable. These include the borrowers 
     that President Biden's plan targets: those who earn less than 
     $75,000 a year. These borrowers make up 90 percent of the 
     would-be beneficiaries of the President's cancellation 
     program.
       In the weeks before the debt relief plan was challenged in 
     court, nearly 26 million borrowers applied or were deemed 
     automatically eligible for the chance at debt relief and 16 
     million had their applications formally approved by the 
     Department of Education. Using the CRA to overturn this life-
     changing debt relief is a cruel affront to everyone who was 
     anticipating an economic fresh start; this tactic also adds 
     another layer of worry just as borrowers await the U.S. 
     Supreme Court's decision.
       CRA efforts to overturn the payment pause and the 
     President's debt relief plan are only the most recent attacks 
     on student loan borrowers. They seem to be a convenient 
     political pawn, in the midst of economic uncertainty and the 
     expiration of other critical benefit expansions for families 
     that were tied to the pandemic. At this difficult time, 
     Congress should be improving families' circumstances, not 
     thwarting the President's efforts to ease their financial 
     pressures.
       The millions of workers our unions represent are grateful 
     for the difference that student loan relief has made in their 
     lives. Because their work in education, health care, public 
     safety, the Armed Forces, and every other public and private 
     sector field reaches a broad swath of Americans, our members 
     also know how much it has impacted everyday citizens. It has 
     allowed hard-working people to finally start saving up for 
     their first home or for the inevitable emergency they will 
     face. It has given parents the breathing room for their first 
     home or for the inevitable emergency they will face. It has 
     given parents the breathing room to begin squirreling away a 
     little money each month for retirement, or for their 
     children's college fund. It has enabled retirees who are 
     still repaying student loans to start planning the once-in-a-
     lifetime trip or family reunion they have dreamed of for 
     years.
       We know that most Americans understand the severity of the 
     student debt crisis and how it affects the people they love. 
     Even those without student debt do not want their children, 
     grandchildren, or other loved ones to struggle with it. 
     Please vote against the CRA to invigorate our economy, 
     increase families' financial security, and restore their 
     hope.
           Sincerely,
     Elizabeth H. Shuler,
       President, American Federation of Labor and Congress of 
     Industrial Organizations.
     Lee Saunders,
       President, American Federation of State, County, and 
     Municipal Employees.
     Randi Weingarten,
       President, American Federation of Teachers.
     Rebecca S. Pringle,
       President, National Education Association.
     Mary Kay Henry,
       President, Service Employees International Union.
     Everett B. Kelley,
       President, American Federation of Government Employees.
     Bonnie Castillo, RN,
       Executive Director, National Nurses United.
     Shawn Fain,
       President, United Auto Workers.
     Marc Perrone,
       International President, United Food and Commercial Workers 
     International Union.
                                  ____


                          [From Minorityvets]

   Minority Veterans of America Estimates the Scale of Harm That the 
       Republican CRA Will Impose on Service Members and Veterans

       H.J. Res. 45, a resolution under the Congressional Review 
     Act (CRA), would reverse the actions of the Department of 
     Education (ED) related to student loan debt. If enacted, it 
     would: (a) block President Biden's debt cancelation plan, (b) 
     retroactively undo the 7th extension of the loan payment 
     pause (Sept. 2022-Dec. 2022), causing millions of borrowers 
     to fall behind on their student loans, and (c) also likely 
     undo the 8th extension of the payment pause (which began in 
     Jan. 2023). Service members and veterans would suffer 
     adversely if the CRA were to pass.
       Service members and veterans are disproportionately 
     affected by student debt and related financial crises:
       1. Due to ineligibility, structural administrative burdens, 
     and awards inadequate to cover the full cost of education, 
     millions of veterans have student-loan debt despite the GI 
     Bill.
       2. With regards to student loan debt, veterans are 
     struggling significantly more than others:
       Veterans borrow more, so have more student debt.
       The proportion of veterans with student debt has grown 
     while the overall proportion of borrowers in other 
     demographic groups has decreased.
       Veterans default at a higher rate than non-veterans: 46 
     percent, (compared to 29 percent) before the pandemic. 
     According to the ED, default and delinquency rates increase 
     after periods of forbearance, so that rate will likely be 
     higher after the payment pause ends, leaving veterans 
     particularly vulnerable.
       3. For-profit institutions (FPIs) have aggressively 
     targeted veterans, such that veterans attend FPIs at a higher 
     rate than non-veterans. Higher costs and lower quality has 
     left many veterans with debt and no degree.
       4. Veterans have fared worse as a result of the pandemic 
     (e.g., 11.8 percent unemployment rate at its peak, compared 
     to an historic low of 3.1 percent before the pandemic).
       5. Service members are laden by student loan debt too--
     entering service not just with loan debt but because of it, 
     hoping for cancelation under the Public Service Loan 
     Forgiveness (PSLF) program. Using GAO data, in 2017 the 
     Consumer Finance Protection Board estimated that over 200,000 
     service members collectively owe more than $2.9 billion in 
     student loan debt.
       Passage of the student loan CRA would harm service members 
     and veterans:
       Under the CRA, progress toward debt cancelation under PSLF, 
     including

[[Page H3041]]

     cancelation itself that borrowers achieved during the pause, 
     would be reversed. This outcome would be particularly 
     devastating for service members and veterans.
       An estimated 46,320 service members would have $4.1 billion 
     of debt that was canceled through PSLF restored.
       As many as 320,000 veterans could lose progress toward more 
     than $28 billion in cancelation toward PSLF.
       A GAO report found that over 94 percent of service members 
     and Department of Defense employees who pursued PSLF were 
     denied relief. The CRA would magnify that institutional 
     failure.
       Nearly 40 percent of veteran borrowers are Pell Grant 
     recipients, almost all of whom would be eligible for $20,000 
     in cancelation.
       Student-debt relief has widespread support among veteran's 
     service organizations:
       A broad coalition of veteran's advocacy groups submitted an 
     amicus brief in support of the Administration's debt relief 
     actions.
                                  ____



                                        National Urban League,

                                                     May 15, 2023.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Urban 
     League and UnidosUS (formerly known as the National Council 
     of La Raza), two historic civil rights organizations fighting 
     for economic security for Black and Latino communities and 
     other historically and systemically oppressed populations, we 
     write to share our opposition to the Congressional Review Act 
     resolutions H.J.Res. 45 and S.J.Res. 22, which would overturn 
     President Biden's actions to pause student loan payments and 
     provide student debt relief for low-income and working-class 
     people in America. As the people in our country continue to 
     recover from the deadly COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating 
     economic fallout, it is vital that relief in the form of 
     student debt cancellation be enacted.
       Communities of color were hit hardest by both the COVID-19 
     virus and its associated economic challenges due to systemic 
     barriers. Compared to their white counterparts, people of 
     color are 1.5 times more likely to get the virus and 2 times 
     more likely to require hospitalization. Economically, Black 
     and Latino workers are overrepresented in front-line jobs 
     that remained in person during shutdowns and that lacked 
     adequate paid time off to recover from illness and care for 
     sick family members. They continue to be overrepresented in 
     the individuals without access to affordable healthcare and 
     childcare. Following the start of the pandemic, 43 percent of 
     Black adults experienced a pay cut due to reduced hours or 
     work demand or were laid off either permanently or 
     temporarily. The most impacted group, 1 in 5 Latinas were 
     unemployed at the peak of shutdowns, not counting those who 
     exited the workforce altogether to become caretakers out of 
     necessity. Additionally, Black and Latino households were 
     also more likely to have food and housing insecurity, face 
     more adverse health issues related to COVID, and secure more 
     debt in conjunction with already accrued student loan debt 
     due to financial burden.
       Meanwhile, at every level of educational attainment, Black 
     students are more likely to borrow--and borrow at higher 
     levels--than their white counterparts. Black college 
     graduates owe an average of $52,000 in student loan debt, 
     about $25,000 more debt than White college graduates. 
     Cancellation provides substantial relief to those unable to 
     repay debts because of inequalities in wealth and income that 
     particularly impact Black borrowers. 66 percent of Black 
     borrowers and 37 percent of Latinos owe more than originally 
     borrowed 12 years after starting college, compared to 30 
     percent white borrowers.
       72 percent of Latino students take out loans to attend 
     college, and 67 percent carry educational debt. In a survey 
     of Latino students who began but did not complete college, 
     UnidosUS and the University of North Carolina's School of Law 
     found that those Latino students who grew up in economically 
     vulnerable communities see college debt as a financial burden 
     that can affect their family's financial security and 
     stability. Interviews with students revealed that the student 
     loan debt burden is causing worry and stress, impacting sleep 
     and quality of life.
       The CRA Resolution introduced in March would overturn the 
     pause of federal student loan payments and interest accrual, 
     and President Biden's debt relief plan. This action would 
     abruptly force tens of millions of borrowers into repayment 
     and add thousands of dollars of interest onto their loan 
     balances, causing perilous financial consequences. It would 
     also require the Department of Education to unwind loans 
     forgiven under Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) for 
     nurses, educators, servicemembers, and public service workers 
     across the country. This is a direct attack on millions of 
     workers and families who are still reeling from the 
     devastating impacts of COVID-19, and would most brutally harm 
     communities of color, who not only have the highest amounts 
     of student debt, but are also over indexed in careers in 
     public service.
       For these reasons, we strongly oppose the efforts to 
     overturn this relief through the Congressional Review Act 
     (H.J.Res. 45/S.J.Res. 22) and we urge you to consider the 
     damage they would have on the millions of people and families 
     in America who need student loan debt relief.
           Sincerely,
     National Urban League,
     UnidosUS.
                                  ____


             Third Way Statement on Student Loan Pause CRA

                          (By Lanae Erickson)

       Washington, May 22, 2023.--Third Way released the following 
     statement from Lanae Erickson, Senior Vice President for 
     Social Policy, Education & Politics:
       ``This week, the House will vote on a Congressional Review 
     Act (CRA) measure that would overturn the pause on student 
     loan repayment and interest accrual dating back to October 
     2022. Regardless of your stance on the Administration's debt 
     cancellation actions, voting in favor of this resolution 
     would be a slap in the face to borrowers--blindsiding them by 
     immediately rolling back eight months of interest benefits 
     they've already received and sticking them with higher 
     balances owed.
       ``There's plenty Congress can do to fix the system and 
     prepare for a smooth return to repayment. This CRA does the 
     exact opposite, increasing debt and setting borrowers up to 
     fail. Members of the House should do right by borrowers and 
     vote against it.''
                                  ____



                               National Council of Nonprofits,

                                                     May 12, 2023.
     Re Adverse impacts on government and charitable nonprofits 
         employees by using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to 
         roll back student loan payment pause.

     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker McCarthy, and Leaders Schumer, Jeffries, and 
     McConnell: The National Council of Nonprofits (NCN) writes to 
     alert you to the unintended consequences to the Public 
     Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program of using the 
     Congressional Review Act (CRA) to roll back the Department of 
     Education's (Department) action to pause student loan 
     payments and force the Department to immediately reinstate 
     the monthly payment requirements for borrowers. While we take 
     no position on the student debt cancellation program, NCN 
     opposes S.J. Res. 22 and H.J. Res. 45 as currently written 
     because the measures would abruptly and retroactively deprive 
     PSLF participants of the benefits they have earned under the 
     program.
       The presumed intended target of the CRA, as introduced, may 
     be President Biden's student debt cancellation plan; however, 
     the effort to disapprove the debt cancellation plan is also 
     coupled with the extended federal student loan payment pause.
       Our concerns with the CRA as currently written can be 
     summarized in three points:
       1. By disapproving the debt cancellation plan, Congress 
     effectively would be ending the payment pause retroactively 
     to the end of last year as well.
       2. Such a retroactive cancellation of the ongoing federal 
     loan payment pause would automatically render all borrowers 
     90 days or more in arrears and render all borrowers out of 
     compliance concerning payment obligations, including for PSLF 
     purposes.
       3. In passing the CRA, Congress would renege on its 
     bipartisan promise since 2007 to public servants working at 
     501(c){3) charitable nonprofits and in government.


                         Clarifying Terminology

       Confusion surrounds the current debates about ending 
     federal student loan debt because of the use of similar words 
     with distinct meanings. Permit us to provide some clarity:
       Debt cancellation. In August 2022, President Biden 
     announced a one-time debt cancellation plan to cancel up to 
     $10,000 of qualifying federal student loan debt per borrower 
     with an additional $10,000 for Pell Grant recipients. 
     Litigation ensued to block the plan, and a final decision in 
     the case, now in the U.S. Supreme Court, is expected before 
     the end of June. No debt has been cancelled yet under the 
     plan.
       Loan forgiveness. In 2007, Congress enacted the Public 
     Service Loan Forgiveness program. PSLF provides an 
     opportunity for borrowers to earn forgiveness after working 
     for 10 years in public service as an employee of a federal, 
     state, or local government or at a 501(c)(3) charitable 
     nonprofit and making 120 qualifying payments on their loans. 
     Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers 
     have shown strong support over the years to continue the 
     program, which was enacted under President Bush and 
     administered under Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden.

[[Page H3042]]

  



   Bipartisan pauses on federal student loan payments count towards 
                eligibility for forgiveness under PSLF.

       At the start of the pandemic, President Trump instituted a 
     payment pause on all federal student loan payments to provide 
     financial relief to borrowers. After President Trump renewed 
     the pause several times, President Biden continued the 
     practice. The last payment pause was set to expire on 
     December 31, 2022. Because of the pending litigation, the 
     student loan payment pause has been extended until either the 
     Department is permitted to implement the debt cancellation 
     program, or the litigation is resolved bt if the debt relief 
     program has not been implemented and the litigation has not 
     been resolved by June 30, 2023, then payments will resume 60 
     days after that.
       Since President Trump first instituted the payment pause, 
     borrowers who work in public service have continued to 
     receive credit towards forgiveness for PSLF purposes, 
     provided they remained employed at an eligible employer. 
     President Biden has continued that policy and announced 
     before the last payment pause was set to expire on December 
     31 that borrowers are receiving credit toward forgiveness 
     under PSLF.


     A retroactive cancellation of the payment pause would impose 
       significant hardship on nonprofit employees and employers.

       Ongoing economic uncertainty and natural disasters plaguing 
     the country exacerbate additional stresses on and demand for 
     services by nonprofit staff. The student loan payment pause 
     has provided critical relief for nonprofit workers who are 
     often paid lower salaries and wages than for-profit 
     businesses due to a variety of factors, including government 
     grants and contracting restraints, the inability to increase 
     prices or charges for services despite increased costs, and 
     diminishing fund raising and private grant opportunities. 
     Competition for qualified workers is acutely felt by 
     nonprofits that cannot adjust salaries and wages as easily or 
     as quickly as the for-profit sector. An estimated four out of 
     five (79 percent) nonprofits identified salary competition as 
     a factor preventing them from filling job openings. Relief 
     from student loan payments and the promise of loan 
     forgiveness for continued public service have served to keep 
     many workers on the job in the face of these other 
     challenges.


The CRA would roll back the pause in student loan payments and have the 
   unintended consequence of disrupting the accumulation of credits 
                       towards PSLF forgiveness.

       The CRA states that Congress ``disapproves'' the debt 
     cancellation plan. Because the current payment pause is an 
     extension of one that was previously set to expire and is now 
     tied to the ongoing lawsuit regarding the debt cancellation 
     plan, what happens under the CRA affects the ongoing payment 
     pause and, therefore, the accumulation of credits towards 
     PSLF forgiveness. Passage of the CRA would automatically 
     trigger payments that were paused beginning January 1, 2023, 
     and would force the Department to begin demanding payments 
     from millions of borrowers, including PSLF participants. 
     Consequently, borrowers could be on the hook for payments due 
     since December 31, 2022, possibly including interest. As a 
     result, more than 37 million borrowers could see unexpected 
     bills adding up to hundreds or thousands of dollars, plus 
     interest. Further, the CRA could operate to vitiate credits 
     towards forgiveness and any borrower who has earned 
     forgiveness since the beginning of the year could see that 
     forgiveness rescinded.
       While NCN takes no position on the student debt 
     cancellation plan, the unintended consequences of rolling 
     back the student loan payment pause would have grave effects 
     on nonprofit workers and others earning forgiveness under 
     PSLF. At a time when nonprofits are facing a workforce 
     shortage, increased demands on services, and added burdens 
     caused by economic uncertainty and natural disasters, workers 
     must receive every benefit possible under the PSLF program.
       The payment pause has provided essential financial relief 
     and reduced stress while allowing workers to continue to earn 
     forgiveness. Any rollback, unexpected financial load, and 
     confusion on PSLF status must be prevented.
       We urge you to oppose the Senate Joint Resolution 22 and 
     House Joint Resolution 45 in their current form and to insist 
     that nonprofit workers and public servants receive the relief 
     they have diligently earned.
       We stand ready to work with Members of Congress to ensure 
     that congressional promises to governmental and nonprofit 
     workers under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program are 
     respected and fulfilled.
           Sincerely,

                                       Tiffany Gourley Carter,

                                                   Policy Counsel,
     National Council of Nonprofits.
                                  ____

                                                    June 21, 2023.
     Re: Patient community concerns about the detrimental impact 
         of policies included in HR 2868, the Association Health 
         Plans Act; HR 2813, the Self-Insurance Protection Act, 
         and HR 3799, the CHOICE Arrangement Act.

     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker McCarthy and Leader Jeffries: On behalf of the 
     millions of patients and consumers across the country with 
     serious, acute and chronic health conditions, our 
     organizations urge you to oppose HR 2868, HR 2813, and HR 
     3799, which threaten access to quality, affordable healthcare 
     coverage.
       The 23 undersigned organizations represent more than 120 
     million people living with a pre-existing condition in the 
     US. Collectively, we have a unique perspective on what 
     individuals and families need to prevent disease, cure 
     illness, and manage chronic health conditions. The diversity 
     of our organizations and the populations we serve enable us 
     to draw upon a wealth of knowledge and expertise that are 
     critical components of any discussion aimed at improving or 
     reforming our healthcare system.
       Our organizations share three principles that we use to 
     help guide our work on healthcare to continue to develop, 
     improve upon, or defend the programs and services our 
     communities need to live longer, healthier lives. These 
     principles state that healthcare must be adequate, 
     affordable, and accessible.
       With these principles at the forefront, we write to convey 
     our concerns about three bills that have recently been moved 
     out of the Rules Committee and will soon be considered on the 
     House floor: HR 2868, the Association Health Plans Act; HR 
     2813, the Self-Insurance Protection Act, and HR 3799, the 
     CHOICE Arrangement Act. In the report ``Under-covered: How 
     `Insurance-Like' Products Are Leaving Patients Exposed,'' 
     many of our organizations documented our concerns with health 
     insurance products that are not required to comply with the 
     patient protections enacted in the Affordable Care Act. We 
     are concerned that policies included in the legislation 
     considered today would decrease the number of consumers 
     enrolled in comprehensive health insurance plans and threaten 
     access to quality, affordable healthcare for the patients and 
     consumers we represent.


              H.R. 2868, the Association Health Plans Act

       Current law allows employers to work together to form a 
     multiple employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) to provide 
     certain benefits to their employees. An Association Health 
     Plan (AHP)--a health benefit plan sponsored by an employer-
     based association--is one type of MEWA.
       Some AHPs can be classified as large employers and are 
     therefore not subject to critical patient protections and 
     state insurance regulations. This can pose risks to employers 
     and their employees. The track record of AHPs and MEWAs in 
     reliably providing comprehensive coverage for consumers is 
     quite poor. According to state insurance regulators, these 
     entities have a long history of fraud and ``[making] money at 
     the expense of their participants.'' State insurance 
     regulators also say AHPs ``have been notoriously prone to 
     insolvencies.''
       AHPs are not required to provide comprehensive coverage or 
     cover the Essential Health Benefits (EHB). AHPs may also 
     charge higher premiums based on occupation (a loophole that 
     allows discrimination based on gender and other factors) or 
     even health status in some cases. As a result, these plans 
     expose enrollees to high financial and health risks and 
     exacerbate rural and/or regional health disparities. 
     Meanwhile, marketing these products can be confusing or 
     misleading and can cause individuals to enroll in plans that 
     do not align with their medical needs or expectations.
       AHPs also pose risks to the many consumers who do not 
     enroll in them. AHPs can siphon away healthy individuals from 
     state individual and small-group markets by leveraging the 
     regulatory advantages they enjoy. This leaves the individual 
     and small group markets smaller and with a larger proportion 
     of individuals with pre-existing conditions, leading to 
     higher premiums and fewer plan choices for those who depend 
     on those markets to access comprehensive coverage.
       Despite the harm AHPs can pose to those who enroll in them 
     as well as those who remain in comprehensive insurance plans, 
     the Association Health Plans Act would promote additional 
     enrollment in AHPs for groups that cannot use them today. We 
     believe additional enrollment in AHPs by small employers and 
     the self-employed will weaken patient and consumer 
     protections and lead to higher costs for consumers who rely 
     on comprehensive insurance.


              H.R. 2813, the Self-Insurance Protection Act

       Stop-loss insurance is intended to be used as a tool to 
     protect a health plan sponsor--typically an employer--from 
     unpredictably high losses due to unexpected claims. As such, 
     it can be an important tool to promote stability for sponsors 
     of health insurance plans, particularly sponsors providing 
     coverage for small numbers of insured individuals, whose 
     unique health needs sometimes necessitate very expensive 
     health services.
       We are concerned that H.R. 2813 would remove an important 
     level of consumer and patient protection by eliminating the 
     ability of states to exercise oversight of stop-loss plans. 
     State insurance commissioners play an important role in the 
     health insurance marketplace. Removing states' ability to 
     regulate stop-loss coverage would lead to less oversight of 
     these plans, which would increase the likelihood of 
     misleading marketing and other fraudulent practices that 
     would prove harmful to employers purchasing stop-loss 
     coverage as well as their employees.

[[Page H3043]]

  



                 H.R. 3799, the CHOICE Arrangement Act

       In lieu of offering a traditional group health plan, 
     employers may provide contributions, on a pre-tax basis, to 
     their employees to subsidize the direct purchase of 
     individual market health coverage.
       The choice to offer these individual coverage health 
     reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs) is available to employers 
     right now, and has been for several years. Yet interest 
     appears to be modest. It is possible take-up has been limited 
     simply because the arrangement is still relatively new, and 
     enrollment may expand with time. It is also possible that, 
     for employers, the value proposition of ICHRAs is less than 
     some anticipated. We note that commonly cited benefits of 
     ICHRAs--including predictable costs for employers and 
     multiple plan options for employees--can be achieved through 
     traditional employer coverage mechanisms and benefit designs.
       Troublingly, however, ICHRAs have introduced new risks, 
     both for workers with employer coverage and for consumers who 
     rely on the individual market. ICHRAs provide employers an 
     opportunity to reduce their costs by moving older and sicker 
     workers off of job-based coverage and into the individual 
     market. These shifts potentially disrupt access to care for 
     employees and make the individual market risk pool more 
     expensive to insure, raising premiums.
       The regulatory framework governing ICHRAs recognizes these 
     dangers and includes provisions to mitigate them. For 
     example, to reduce the ability of employers to offer ICHRAs 
     selectively to only their sicker employees, federal rules 
     require employers to treat all members of a particular class 
     of workers the same for purposes of ICHRA eligibility. Still, 
     the leeway given to employers to tailor these classifications 
     is substantial, and it allows employers to create subgroups 
     of workers based on characteristics that are proxies for 
     health status. The rules also lack safeguards that would 
     prevent an employer from using administrative loopholes to 
     segment its workforce for ICHRA purposes based on otherwise 
     impermissible factors. For these reasons, we have encouraged 
     federal regulators to collect and publish data that would 
     shed light on how employers are using these arrangements and 
     the effectiveness of the nondiscrimination guardrails.
       Against this backdrop, H.R. 3799 would create ``custom 
     health option and individual care expense'' (CHOICE) 
     arrangements, a new tax-advantaged arrangement similar to but 
     apparently legally distinct from ICHRAs. To the extent H.R. 
     3799 is intended merely to codify the established regulatory 
     framework for ICHRAs, we believe doing so is unwarranted at 
     this time. Moreover, the bill's convoluted approach is likely 
     to increase confusion and uncertainty.
       Of additional concern, it appears H.R. 3799 incorporates 
     the ICHRA rules selectively, in a manner that could intensify 
     the risks posed by these arrangements. As we observed above, 
     the nondiscrimination provisions in the existing regulatory 
     framework are essential but insufficient to prevent employers 
     from using ICHRAs to shift higher-cost workers to the 
     individual market. H.R. 3799 does nothing to address these 
     shortcomings. On the contrary, it would omit from statute key 
     protections designed to safeguard consumers and the 
     individual insurance market from the downsides of these 
     arrangements.


                               Conclusion

       We urge lawmakers to reject the three bills referenced 
     above and, instead, partner with organizations like ours to 
     identify opportunities to expand affordable, accessible, and 
     adequate healthcare coverage for patients. If you have 
     questions or would like to discuss this further, please 
     contact Brian Connell VP, Federal Affairs with The Leukemia & 
     Lymphoma Society.
           Sincerely,
       American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American 
     Heart Association, American Kidney Fund, American Lung 
     Association, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, 
     CancerCare, Child Neurology Foundation, Crohn's & Colitis 
     Foundation, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Epilepsy Foundation, 
     Hemophilia Federation of America, Lupus Foundation of 
     America.
       Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Eczema 
     Association, National Health Council, National Hemophilia 
     Foundation, National Kidney Foundation, National Multiple 
     Sclerosis Society, National Organization for Rare Disorders, 
     National Patient Advocate Foundation, Susan G. Komen, The 
     AIDS Institute, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, there are many challenges we have 
in higher education that demand our attention: the rising cost of 
college, student debt crisis, the eroded value of the Pell grant, 
student mental health issues, and the list goes on.
  Instead, we are addressing this resolution which will hurt millions 
of student borrowers and their families; an average of about 100,000 in 
each of our districts.
  Many of our colleagues on the other side have justified the 
resolution by arguing that we cannot afford the plan, yet ignoring that 
we were willing to charge taxpayers $1.9 trillion for a tax package a 
few years ago that overwhelmingly benefited the top 1 percent and 
corporations. Now they are unwilling to spend much less than that to 
help students pay for their education.
  We should be passing proposals that meaningfully support borrowers 
and make college more affordable for current and future students. The 
bottom line is that we have a responsibility to strengthen support for 
those seeking college degrees. Those who want a degree should be able 
to access that opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the proposal, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration is destroying the Federal 
student aid system that has balanced providing millions of students 
access to opportunities for post-secondary education while respecting 
the interest of taxpayers who fund these opportunities.
  Democrats know their radical free college agenda won't make it 
through Congress, so instead they are forcing it down Americans' 
throats by executive fiat through the student loan program. Obfuscation 
about the details has allowed the department to tout alleged benefits 
without facing any scrutiny over the implications of these radical 
changes; however, the facts, which this administration has tried to 
push under the rug, prove its agenda is nothing more than an attempt to 
skirt the law and enact policies that would never pass Congress.
  These actions will leave colleges free to continue increasing costs 
that greatly impact all American taxpayers. These policies deny any 
accountability to borrowers and evade any responsibility to help those 
students turn their degrees into a job.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the override of the President's 
veto, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 206, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 277]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Golden (ME)
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perez
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Santos
     Scalise

[[Page H3044]]


     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NAYS--206

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Kilmer
     Loudermilk
     Meng
     Posey
     Pressley
     Sewell
     Williams (TX)

                              {time}  1800

  So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the veto of the 
President was sustained and the joint resolution was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The veto message and the joint resolution 
are referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.

                          ____________________