[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 147 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4361-S4362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Student Loans

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, President Biden officially 
launched the second part of his student loan giveaway--his dramatic 
overhaul of the REPAYE program, an income-driven repayment plan for 
Federal student loans.
  The President's revamp flew under the radar a bit when it was first 
announced, overshadowed by his plan to forgive up to $10,000 of student 
loan debt outright--or $20,000 for Pell grant recipients. But the truth 
is that the President's new income-driven repayment plan, which he has 
dubbed the Saving on a Valuable Education plan--or the SAVE plan--is 
just as problematic, if not more, as the President's scheme to forgive 
student debt outright because the new SAVE plan will create a system in 
which the majority of future Federal borrowers will never fully repay 
their student loans.
  The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that just 24.6 
percent of future borrowers will repay their loans in full--in other 
words, less than a quarter of borrowers.
  The Department of Education estimates that borrowers with only 
undergraduate debt enrolled in the SAVE program can, on average, expect 
to pay back just $6,121 for each $10,000 they borrow. That amount the 
Federal Government is taking on, on average, is almost 40 percent of 
the cost of these undergraduates' student loans.
  Let's call this what it is: It is loan forgiveness by another name. 
You don't have to take my word for it.
  One scholar from the left-leaning Urban Institute had this to say on 
NPR the other day:

       I think it's going to be less obvious that it's a big loan 
     forgiveness program to both borrowers and onlookers as well. 
     But, yeah, it's a big loan forgiveness program. . . . So no 
     longer a safety net like it has been in the past for 
     undergraduates--this looks more like a broad-based subsidy 
     for undergraduate degrees through loan forgiveness.

  That, from a scholar at the left-leaning Urban Institute. Let me 
repeat that: ``a broad-based subsidy for undergraduate degrees through 
loan forgiveness.''
  Or, in other words, in the words of one scholar from the American 
Enterprise Institute, ``a functional entitlement program'' whose costs, 
he adds, ``will prove difficult to control.''
  I don't need to tell anyone that the problems here are myriad. Just 
think about it. For starters, someone is going to have to bear the cost 
of all these unrepaid student loans. And that someone is the American 
taxpayers, including taxpayers who worked hard to pay off the full 
balance on their own student loans, without a handout from the Federal 
Government, and taxpayers who worked their way through school to avoid 
a heavy loan burden and parents who scrimped and saved to send their 
children to college debt-free and individuals who covered the cost of 
their education by enlisting in the military and risking their lives 
for their country. And I could go on.
  I am at a loss to understand why taxpayers, as a whole, should assume 
a substantial part of the educational burden for individuals, who, if 
they graduated from college, have greater long-term earning potential 
than many of the Americans who will be helping to shoulder the burdens 
for their debts.
  And, of course, this program isn't just being offered to help 
undergraduate debt. No. Graduate students, including those in 
professional degree programs like medical school and law school, will 
also be eligible for the so-called SAVE program.
  And I don't need to tell anyone that the lifetime earning potential 
of a doctor or a lawyer is usually pretty good. But leaving aside 
questions of fairness, let's talk about the costs of this de facto new 
entitlement program. Again, the Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates the 
SAVE program will cost roughly half a trillion dollars over the next 10 
years.
  We have a national debt today of $32 trillion and a Federal budget 
that has increased by 41 percent since 2019. Contrary to what President 
Biden seems to believe, we can't afford to be constantly expanding 
government programs. We simply don't have the money to be subsidizing 
the college--and graduate--education of a group of people whose earning 
potential will exceed the earning potential of a lot of the people 
subsidizing their schooling.
  Perhaps the worst thing about the President's new program is that we 
will be spending all that money and doing nothing--nothing--to solve 
the real problem, and that is the high cost of a college education.
  President Biden's student loan giveaway provides actually zero--
exactly

[[Page S4362]]

zero--incentive for colleges to contain costs. In fact, there is reason 
to fear that it could actually encourage colleges to raise their prices 
or, at least, make them significantly less reluctant to do so.
  And, of course, the President's proposal does nothing to discourage 
students from borrowing substantial amounts of money to finance their 
education. Indeed, there is a good chance students will increase their 
borrowing as a result of the President's plan.
  The President's ill-conceived student loan giveaway is a tremendous 
disservice to taxpayers--and a terrible move for our economic health.
  As I said, it does nothing to address the real problem, which is the 
high cost of higher education, which is why last week, I joined Senator 
Cassidy to introduce a resolution of disapproval to block the 
President's plan. And I encourage Members of both parties to support 
this resolution. Anyone who cares about actually addressing the cost of 
higher education should oppose a program that not only fails to solve 
the underlying problems but is actually likely to make things worse.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.