someone does not have a realistic ability to pay back the loan, then
the university should not be charging that much.
  By the way, most nursing students--95 percent of them--borrow less
than $100,000 to complete their degree. That is below the borrowing
limit Congress established in the Working Families Tax Cut.
  The 5 percent of nursing students borrowing more than $100,000 choose
to take on that debt. They choose a more expensive option. Clearly,
since 95 percent don't need to borrow that much, there are other
options, and not all nurses need federally backed loans up to $200,000
in order to get their degree.
  So, is my colleague suggesting that taxpayers subsidize the 5 percent
of nursing students, regardless of their ability to pay back the loan?
I don't think that is fair to them.
  If there are limited number--and this is important--if there is a
limited number of targeted subspecialties in professions--I think of a
CRNA--that are inadvertently and inappropriately excluded by this rule,
let's have a conversation. Let's measure their ability to pay back such
a large loan and if that loan and the degree it pays for is necessary
for their professional subspecialty. And, importantly, can they pay it
back?
  CRNAs do well. I personally think we should have a higher loan limit
for them--that is one example--because they are going to do well
financially. And to the point, it could be more expensive for them to
have their training.
  That is, if you will, a nuanced approach, looking at a group of
people for which we know the facts. But that is not what this CRA does.
It guts all reforms and sends us back to the Biden administration
student loan disaster.
  There are bipartisan efforts on my committee to make college more
affordable for students, families, and taxpayers. I am leading the
College Transparency Act, the CTA, which allows students to compare the
differences between a college that they go to, and the major within
that college, to see the value of the degree relative to the price of
admission.
  I ask my Democratic colleagues to work with us to advance these
bipartisan solutions, not to push partisan resolutions that raise the
cost of college and bury students with debt.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Will my colleague yield to a question?
  Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, sir.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I believe I understood you to say that you are citing a
university that has lowered its tuition.
  Did I understand that correctly?
  Mr. CASSIDY. Correct.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Which university was that?
  Mr. CASSIDY. I think it was Santa Clara. I have to go back to my
notes. I think it was Santa Clara.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Is that a private or public school?
  Mr. CASSIDY. I don't know if the University of Santa Clara is private
or public.
  Mr. MERKLEY. So here is the thing. There are 4,000 universities in
the country. Do you have any idea how many have followed that example
and lowered their tuition?
  Mr. CASSIDY. I don't know how many have, but the bill has just
passed. And I do know that market reforms permeate society.
  And as a student realizes, I can go to the community college down the
street and get a nursing degree and pay for it entirely with a small
amount of money, or I can go someplace far more expensive and have to
borrow $100,000--in the case of the previous law, $200,000--that market
forces--and, particularly, if we put in the College Transparency Act--
will have that individual go to one where they get the better value for
their education. That, I am positive of.
  Mr. MERKLEY. My colleague has got it completely wrong. There are less
expensive ways to get a nursing degree. Indeed, my wife is a nurse, and
she got her 2-year nursing degree at a community college. We were very,
very fortunate to get even some scholarships to help her do that at a
time when our income was extremely little.
  But here is the thing: There aren't very many slots like that. With
the 4-year programs that are throughout Oregon at private universities,
you can't come close to paying your annual expenses at $20,500. We need
a lot more nursing slots because there are a lot of folks who are
coming out of high school with straight A's. They can do the
statistics, and they can do all the prerequisites, but there just
aren't enough slots. So we are wrestling with the fact that we are
importing a lot of nurses from overseas rather than providing
opportunities for our kids.
  What this means is, yes, you are right. There are some ways to get a
nursing degree--a 2-year degree in particular--that are less, but most
folks have to do another 2 years because now hospitals won't take a 2-
year nurse. They often have to go to a private program, and those
programs average $38,500 a year.
  The math is simple. For the families like the family I come from,
wherein you have to borrow, borrowing at 6 percent is a hell of a lot
better than borrowing at 11 percent. With the rich, their families have
home equity loans. If they are going to borrow, they borrow at 6. So we
are saying: Here is this big obstacle for ordinary people who don't
have parents who are affluent.
  It is just the math.
  The idea that all of those programs are going to be able to lower
their $38,500, on average--many are much more--to $20,500 is just
false. There may be one or two universities that have lowered it, and
by the way, they did it in anticipation--and maybe for different
reasons--because this hasn't gone into effect yet. It is going into
effect a few days from now. That is why we are talking about this now.
It is going to affect folks who are going to school next year. So this
is very disturbing to me that we are creating this obstacle for
families who need help.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all
postcloture time be expired on the Jones nomination and that the Senate
proceed to executive session and vote on confirmation of the nomination
at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, July 13; further, that if the nomination is
confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion with respect to Executive
Calendar No. 776 ripen following disposition of Calendar No. 432, S.J.
Res. 196; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be
expired at 12 noon on Tuesday, July 14, and the Senate vote on
confirmation of the nomination at a time to be determined by the
majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Tuesday,
July 14; finally, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027--Motion to
                                Proceed

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 436, S.
4784.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 436, S. 4784, a bill to
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military
     activities of the Department of Defense, for military
     construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
     Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such
     fiscal year, and for other purposes.