Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 108 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)

[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.

____________________