But if you are from a family that doesn't have the ability to pay
that cash and you have to borrow, we are going to force you to borrow
loans that are 9, 10, 11, 12 percent because we don't want that avenue
of opportunity for you. We only want it for the rich kids.
  This is a rule for rich America, and this is a penalty against normal
people. That is wrong. I thought this democracy was supposed to be of,
by, and for the people, not special, gold-plated avenues for the kids
of the richest families.
  And I know that this Chamber is full of multimillionaires--maybe a
few billionaires--who don't know the darnedest thing about how families
struggle across this Nation and how much they want their kids to have
opportunity too.
  So this is very simple. Let's reject this rule that puts up a huge
barrier for the children of families of modest means and medium incomes
or low incomes. Let's knock down that barrier. Let's not force them
into predatory lending.
  Now, there are some who say: But wait. We think that the schools will
lower their tuition as a result of us making loans unavailable.
  That is a false premise. Never worked anywhere because the schools
have to pay the professors. They have to pay for the infrastructure.
They have to pay interest on the buildings they have already built. And
so they have to charge accordingly.
  When we saw before--and we have been down this road--when there was a
limit on public loans and people had to go to private loans--like the
friend of my son--you end up with those 10, 11, 12 percent interest
loans. They are predatory against our children of the next generation.
  So who here wants to speak up for the rich to be the only ones with
opportunity in this country? Let's strike down this rule and say to the
President's team: When this bill was passed, no one in this Chamber
meant to say that opportunity is only for the wealthy kids.
  This is our opportunity. It is a Congressional Review Act. It means
we can say no to a rule that puts up a hurdle to ordinary children.
  So it isn't as if everything is rosy for the children of the next
generation--hey, housing prices, up through the roof. Home ownership
median age has risen from 33 to age 40 over just a 5-year period
because the next generation can't afford to buy a home. Rents are
pressing people against the wall. Tariffs have added so much cost to
the families.
  Why are we going to pile this predatory loan program on top of
everything else? It is absolutely wrong. So let's just join together
and say: Let's put this rule in the rubbish bin. Let's put it through
the shredder because it only hurts the next generation that we should
be striving to help thrive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, it is really kind of interesting. A
couple of years ago, we were talking about student loan debt. Colleges
were saddling students with student loan debt, forcing them to live in
their parents' basement because they couldn't pay back those loans.
  If you look to the people taking these loans, they may not have
completed their degree, or the degree they got paid them less in a year
than the annual tuition they were forced to pay. And, of course, that
tuition--paid for by borrowed Federal money--compounded interest,
leaving them mired in debt.
  It is a false compassion to say that every person should be able to
borrow as much as they want from the Federal Government, to go to the
school, whatever the school charges. That is a false compassion.
  Republicans are not about false compassion. We are about allowing
Americans to live the American dream, but that is not by saddling them
with debt like a weight around their neck, pulling them into a pool of
debt from which their whole life is affected.
  It is pretty clear. The cost of higher education is out of control.
And that is, in part, because of Federal lending programs that will
allow students to borrow whatever they wanted to--almost. And so
universities raise their tuition to maximize income, not to maximize
value, but to maximize income.
  By the way, a 2023 National Bureau of Economic Research study found
that uncapped Federal borrowing for graduate programs did not increase
access or degree attainment.
  Think about this: Oh, we can give much, much, much more money, but
the NBER found that giving as much money as they wanted did not
increase access and did not increase degree attainment.
  You know what it did increase? Student loan debt. That is what it
increased because the universities making profit off of that really,
ultimately, were not left holding the bag. It was the student and the
U.S. taxpayer who were left holding the bag.
  Colleges could increase their prices--the higher the cost, the bigger
the loan. The kid drops out. He doesn't graduate. He can't pay back the
loan. The taxpayer picks it up. The person is saddled with debt, but
the college has the money.
  Now, by the way, putting Americans more and more in debt, while
colleges raise tuition, only makes the affordability crisis worse.
  In August, Republicans put an end to this nonsense, and we passed the
Working Families Tax Cut bill. We addressed the root cause of rising
costs. We put limits on Federal loans for professional degrees.
  As a result, there are universities already lowering their costs.
Last fall, Santa Clara University cut law school tuition by $16,000,
citing loan limits the Senate Republicans enacted as a catalyst. Think
about that: Law schools are 3 years. Mr. President, 3 times 16, we got
$48,000 less in borrowing in a response to the legislation that we
passed.
  UC Irvine recently announced cutting tuition for their MBA program by
38 percent for the upcoming fall semester.
  Now, unfortunately, the resolution offered by my friend from Oregon
undermines this success. And the claim is that this merely corrects a
rule put forward by the Trump administration that limits access to
taxpayer-funded loans for certain professions.
  That is not true. This resolution would nullify the Department of
Education's regulation for implementing all student loan reforms
enacted in the reconciliation as part of the Working Families Tax Cut
bill. Every part of it is going to be nullified.
  A vote for this CRA undermines the $284 billion in savings for the
U.S. taxpayer. A vote for this CRA is a vote to undermine changes that
are already reducing the cost of higher education.
  A vote for this is a vote to allow the student to borrow as much as
she wants to in response to a tuition skyrocketing and to land her into
a hell of student loan debt that she can never escape.
  A vote for this is to go back to the Biden approach to student loans,
rather than the historic reforms passed by congressional Republicans
and signed into law by President Trump.
  Now, by the way, there is a nuance here. If you are thinking about
voting for this resolution because you have concerns about how
professional degrees have been defined in the rule, we should talk. I
am happy to have that because, frankly, I have some concerns about
that. And so let's see if we can actually address that in an
appropriate way, not in a blunt axe way.
  That debate is a separate, targeted conversation, not fit for an
overly broad CRA. For example, let's address the criticism that nurses
and social workers are excluded from professional degrees.
  Now, I am going to be clear. I am a doc. I worked with nurses. They
are professionals. They are right up there with me because I have
been--at 3 in the morning--taking care of sick patients vomiting blood.
I know the professionalism that nurses bring to their care--similarly
for social workers. So no one doubts that they are professionals. No
one doubts that they are essential to the health system.
  But this debate is a debate about certain degrees that are required
for entrance into the profession and require longer lengths of study
than graduate-level programs. And based on those factors, should you be
able to borrow up to $200,000 in taxpayer-backed Federal loan programs
to pay for a degree?
  More importantly, do you have a realistic ability to pay back that
loan? If