internet work is even harder. that's why we're providing lower income students access to affordable internet so homework can just be homework. cox, connect to compete. >> cox, supports c-span as a public service, along with these other telision providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> senate lawmakers are about to begin legislative work for the day. they will be working on several judicial nominations, including the nomination of jamar walker to be u.s. district court judge for eastern virginia. if confirmed, he will be virginia's first openly gay federal judge. votes on judicial nominations are expected to happen throughout the day. we bring you live coverage of the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's prayer will be led by

mark antal, the national chaplain of the american legion. 6 the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, king of kings and lord of all the nations. we come before you seeking your divine wisdom, mercy and love. from the theme verse for the united states army chaplain corps, proverbs 9:10, "the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom." we come to you not in a state of slavish fear but in an attitude of love and reverence. from houses of worship and places of prayer, people all across our nation pray daily for these men and women assembled here in this chamber. guard, keep and protect these senators as they travel from their homes here in washington and then to their respective home states. help them to know that they are respected and honored by a

grateful nation. their task may appear huge at times. help them to remember the words of the late mother teresa of calcutta, "we cannot do great things in this world. we can only do small things with great love." from the words of the great hymn writer pollard-stebbins, we humbly pray: "have thine own way, lord. have thine own way. thou art the potter, i am the clay mold me and make me after thy will. while i am waiting yielded and still. to you, o god, belong the glory. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty

with liberty

10:00 eastern, six states challenging the president's order, student loan forgiveness plan 10:00 a.m. eastern and three the department of education involving the challenging individual plan, that's 11:00 a.m. eastern so back to back on c-span three also available online streaming live on c-span.org and will have it on the c-span now mobile app. joining us to help us understand the cases before the supreme court, supreme court supporter will be at the court later today. >> good morning, how are you? >> one of your pieces leading up to today's cases, biden will be playing defense on student loans

this week, tell us why the headline says that. >> i think a lot of us who cover the supreme court on a regular basis are looking at previous cases that are analogous. there's a lot of skepticism from the conservative majority for actions administrations take with the law is not explicitly clear they have the authority to do that and a good example i think is the eviction moratorium case where the two administrations applause any evictions during the covid-19 pandemic based on a law that basically said surgeon general can do what he or she is necessary to block the spread of the disease this. the administrations, two of them read that law to say they could block evictions and what the supreme court said is no,

doesn't say anything about that in this law and while it's broad authority you can't read the specific authorizations into these broad laws explicit words from congress so i think the other side will argue it is different but there are a lot of similarities between broad authority. >> was the president's announcement last august, how many would be affected by the loan program and why are they challenging that? >> as you noted the president announced this plan in august, i think it was by october it had been shut down by court so it's been applauded for a long time in the supreme court put on pause on a temporary basis when they decided to hear the two cases. ri estimated -- n i'll give my remarks. first, mr. president, i understand there's a bill at the desk that's due for a second

reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. the clerk: s. 53 532, a bill o protect and preserve the free choice of individual employees to form, or join labor objections or to refrain from such activities. mr. schumer: in order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule 14, i object to further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, on the recap of the codel, while meeting last week with leaders in europe, india, pakistan and israel, the nine of us on our codel, two takeaways became clear. first, the united states should deepen our relationship with india, if we want to outcompete the chinese communist party in this century. second, democracies must unite in increasing aid to ukraine. i was glad prime minister modi

got the message during our meeting with him in india. our colleagues and i made clear, the two largest democracies in the world, the world's oldest democracy, the world's largest, could be a powerful check against the ccp. that doesn't mean just cooperating with india on defense and security, though that's essential. it means we must take an all-out, all-of-the-above approach, because that's precisely what the ccp is doing. the ccp want to outcompete america not just on defense, but also economically, geopolitically, tech no lodge chi, in terms of our -- technologically, in terms of fundamental values and more. as our transatlantic partnership matters immensely, so too will our partnership with india. the u.s. and india must, therefore, keep working together to strengthen our economic ties, expand our trade, and make it easier to recruit talented workers from abroad to work in our country. while meeting with foreign leaders, we also made clear the importance of standing shoulder

to shoulder with the people of ukraine. we made it clear to the leaders of europe, india, pack stand and israel they must increase aid to ukraine. vladimir putin's illegal invasion is now a year old, and as difficult as the road has been we made it clear that the worst thing we can do is waiver in our support. the ukrainian people and ukrainian armed fors are fighting valuansly, but they -- forces are fighting valiantly, but they need more material and it's our job to give it to them. a russian victory will not quench putin's hunger for expansion. it will escalate the disiert for more -- desire for more territory. the right answer is for all free nations to continue supporting the ukrainian people. now, on the scotus oral arguments on student debt, today, if the supreme court begins hearing oral arguments on president biden's student debt relief plan, that could give tens of millions of americans new lease on life.

republicans talk a big game about helping working people, but today's case it before the supreme court, pushed by republican office holders who oppose the president's plan, is a slap in the face of working americans across the country. young and old alike, let me be clear -- 90%, 90% of the relief going to out-of-school borrowers will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. this isn't a handout to the wealthy. far from it. this is critical relief to working and american family ps. for -- middle class families. for generations this it was a ladder up for millions of black, latino and asian americans. over the years, the student debt that comes with a college degree has become not a ladder up, but an anchor weighing americans down, making it harder to put a down payment on a house, buy a car, start a family and save for retirement. in other words, the burden of

student debt makes it harder, harder to achieve the american dream. that's what is at stake before the supreme court. not just the chance to relieve the crushing weight of student debt for millions upon millions of people, but also to make the american dream a little more accessible for millions more, their families as well as themselves. that's all we're trying to do, and i'm confident we'll get there, because i believe the law is on our side. now, on chips and science, just six months after president biden signed the chips and science act into law we're already seeing it pay major, major dividends for our economy. to the opportunity of $200 billion in private investments across 16 states. and starting today, applications are officially open for more investments in american industry and in american workers. today secretary raimondo, who has done terrific work getting chips up and running, is rolling

out the department of commerce's applications for chips funding. today's rollout is a major step towards making america the world leader in chip production once again. it with tremendous benefits for our national security, for outcompeting the chinese communist party, and creating tens of thousands of good-paying union jobs right here at home. so, i want to commend secretary raimondo, who is not only a crucial partner with me in getting the bill across the finish line, but has also done a fantastic job rolling out the if you funding so quickly, effectively and efficiently. i want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for recognizing the need to get this done and pushing to make it happen. on east palestine, yesterday, i called on norfolk southern ceo alan shaw to come before the senate and answer questions under oath about the derailment in east palestine. the accident has been deemed

100% preventable. so mr. shaw should be transparent, forthright, and should not duck but instead testify before america, before the senate, as soon as possible. norfolk southern owes the american people some answers to some very important questions. why, for example, did norfolk southern spend years pushing the federal government, and particularly the trump administration, to repeal, repeal safety regulations intended to prevent accidents similar to the one in east palestine? why has norfolk southern laid off thousands of workers while reporting over $3 billion in profits in 2022? why did norfolk southern launch a $10 billion stock buyback program last year? when they could have used that money to upgrade safety equipment, hire more workers or pay employees better wages? disasters like the one in east palestine are precisely what can happen when safety takes a

backseat to maximizing profits. it's a pattern that has played out to devastating effect over the years, corporate interests lobby the government to loosen safety rules, then they cut costs, cut workers, reshare shareholders and sooner or later disaster strikes. it is so typical, so typical, mr. president, for people like donald trump to do the bidding of special interests, cause harm to the american people, that's what he did when he loosened railroad regulations, then point the finger at someone else when something terrible happens. that's just what he did here. it just doesn't wash. the american people see right through it. once again, i hope the ceo of norfolk southern testifies as soon as possible. norfolk southern has broken their trust with the american public and must, must be held accountable. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

i don't know, they said it's part of the program in 2021. >> have you tried to your homes or somebody to get legislative help assistance resolving your issues? >> i have not but at the time they didn't know because i had a word as previously i was with the coast guard so i had to go for radiation so that was in high school so years later in

college and i had my first job, my third semester i got extremely sick so i was unable to work so maybe 84 close to 89, they were knocking on my door. >> i appreciate your perspective and hope you can resolve your problems throughout the morning than showing you c-span cameras -- mr. mcconnell: washington democrats' reckless spending has embedded painful inflation deep in our economy. runaway prices are making families' monthly budgets harder to balance, and as interest rates rise the financial markets, where millions of americans invest their life savings, are becoming literally more volatile.

short-term bond yields are trading at their highest levels since the precipice of the great recession in 2007. indications of expected stock market volatility appear to be actually on the upswing. but with americans' retirement accounts already in jeopardy, democrats have gone looking for still nor ways to put workers' savings at even greater risk. the biden administration is trying to enact a radical new regulation that would help liberals use their very own retirement savings as financial muscle for political causes they may not even support. the labor department's proposed new rule would water down financial managers' fiduciary obligation to get the best return for their clients. this administration wants to let

the fund managers prioritize extraneous factors from companies' carbon footprints to various hr policies when deciding where to invest hardworking american savings. the biden administration wants to let wall street use workers' hard-earned savings to pursue left-wing political initiatives instead of trying to maximize, maximize the return for their clients' retirements. democrats want to let money managers make these unrelated ideological goals a higher priority than getting their clients, ordinary american workers, the best returns for their own retirements. so, mr. president, not surprisingly, studies suggest that investment funds where the managers put a political thumb on the scale in this particular fashion tend not to surprisingly to underperform normal investments. when you put id lodge -- put

ideology ahead of seeking the highest returns, well, the returns, of course, suffer. and if the democrats have their way, the losers will be ordinary american workers who have spent their whole careers putting money away for their retirement. in effect, in effect, we're talking about letting financial companies garnish the retirement savings of workers without their permission in order to pursue unrelated liberal political goals. the biden administration wants to put american workers in a position where portions of their potential returns on their retirement savings could be effectively donated away to left-wing political causes without their consent. what a disastrous way to pile on to the pain they've already caused millions of american families. so i'm grateful to my colleague from indiana, senator braun, and to my friend and fellow

kentuckian, congressman andy barr, for leading a bipartisan resolution in both houses to make sure the american retirement accounts are about one thing, one thing, maximizing returns on investments. and i'll be proud to support this commonsense measure later this week. now on another matter, a crime in our nation's capital is literally out of control. washington, d.c. has already seen about three dozen homicides in just the first two months of the year. this is a 35% increase over last year's pace. there have been more than 1300 thefts from autos, a 25% increase over last year's pace. and more than 1100 thefts of motor vehicles, including carjackings, more than doubling last year's pace for a shattering 109% increase.

at best, the liberal city politicians who have presided over this ongoing collapse in law and order are doing basically nothing. the mayor recently announced the city will hand out free steering wheelocks to residents who own certain kind of vehicles but some local officials are not content with doing nothing and have said their minds to making the situation actually worse. the city council just passed a new criminal code that is designed to go even softer still on crime reducing penalties for a number of violent offenses and property crimes. to a unique degree, unlike any other city in america, washington, d.c. issues are national issues. the district of columbia doesn't belong to a handful of local politicians. it belongs to more than 330 million citizens. the people need their government to function in safety. families and school groups need

to be able to come to tour the capitol which their own tax dollars help finance in peace of body and peace of mind. this is why the constitution entrusts our seat of government to a federal district. it is why federal law gives congress the ability to step in and help govern our nation's capital city if local politicians fail to take care of basic business. now amazingly, the same washington democrats who spent the last several years trying to steamroll lockism and federalism in every way possible are now all of a sudden indignant at the notion that congress might toughen up penalties for violent crime here in the district. just last year alone, democrats right here in this chamber tried to break the senate rules so they could micromanage every county in america's election laws. they tried to ram through a bill

that would have swept away state and local laws and forced every community in america to adopt a radical abortion laws on par with china and north korea. and over the last two years, democrats have passed bill after bill and spent trillions of dollars to interfere in american families' lives and put more of our society under the thumb of federal bureaucrats. so when it comes to radical far-left priorities, washington democrats have no qualms whatsoever about this city steamrolling 50 states and local communities. they vote for that outcome eight days a week. but now, mr. president, now when public safety is in free fall and our federal city itself, now washington democrats pretend they've become small government federalists, and they want congress out of the picture. this is a desperate attempt to

change the subject and it could not be less persuasive. democrats want washington, d.c. to take over every state law, even small business decisions, and every family's financial choices. but, but we're supposed to believe that washington, d.c. cleaning up violent crime in washington, d.c. itself would be a bridge too far. really? they're just trying to duck the real debate. democrats want a debate anything and everything beside violent crime itself. because the modern democratic party and its coalitions have decided it's more important to have compassion for serial violent felons than for innocent citizens who just want to live their lives. that's the issue here. that's the issue here. a binary choice. should we be softer on crime like democrats want at the state, local and federal levels or should we be tougher on crime

like republicans and the american people want? that is the debate. i want to thank senator hagerty for spearheading the commonsense resolution that would nullify the d.c. council's insane pro criminal legislation and bring at least an ounce, an ounce of common sense back to the american people's federal city. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, jamar k. walker of virginia to be united states district judge for the eastern district of virginia. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, across the street this morning, oral arguments rl occurring at the supreme court -- are occurring at the supreme court in two challenges to the president's reckless student loan giveaway. there are two main parts to the president's scheme. there's the outright forgiveness of $10,000 in federal student debt, $20,000 for pell grant

recipients which is set to cost american taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of half a trillion dollars. and then there's the president's radical revamp of the income-driven repayment system which will also bring the total cost for the president's plan to somewhere close to a trillion dollars. the president's new income-driven repayment plan has probably garnered less attention than its plans for student loan forgiveness. but the new income hf driven repayment properly is just as problematic because it sets up a system in which the majority of federal borrowers will never, never fully repay their loans. one scholar at the brookings institute, estimates that, and i quote, the vast majority, end quote, of college students will be eligible for the program and current and future borrowers

enrolled in the program, quote, on average might only respect to repay 50 cents for each dollar that they borrow. end quote. repay approximately 50 cents for each dollar they borrow. the urban institute, another left of center think tank estimates 52% of those with bachelor degrees in the president's repayment program will repay their loans in full. by contrast, the institute notes that understood under today aidm that 59% of individuals to repay their loans in full. mr. president, the nonpartisan penn wharton budget model, estimates that the cost of the repayment program at $333 billion to $361 billion, the range, over ten years.

however, penn whartton notes, and i quote, these estimates do not yet include the effects of students increasing their borrowing. end quote. these estimates do not yet include the effects of students increasing their borrowing. and needless to say, students are likely to increase their borrowing. it's common sense. in fact, the brookings institution notes that borrowing is likely to become the preferred means of paying for college under the president's plan. and, of course, as student borrowing increases, so do the costs to taxpayers, because it will be taxpayers who will be footing the bill for all the student loan money that is never paid back. president biden's outright student loan forgiveness and his student loan masquerading as

income driven repayment are going to cost the taxpayers a lot 0 of money. there are the direct costs of the plan that will be paid for by the federal government, in other words, by taxpayers, including those who never went to college and those who have already paid off their student loans. and there are the indirect costs like the fact that the president's student loan giveaway is likely to prolong our current inflation crisis. the committee for a responsible federal budget where president biden's own treasury secretary once served on the board has estimated that the president's plan would, and i quote, meaningfully boost inflation. end quote. meaningfully boost inflation. now, you would think that the president might have learned his lesson after helping to set off the worst inflation crisis in 40 years with his massive american

rescue plan spending spree. but apparently not. and, mr. president, it's important to remember that taxpayers are going to be footing the bill of student loan cancellation for americans who, if they graduated from college, enjoy greater long-term earning potential than those who are shouldering the burden of their did debts. this isn't a federal government handout for the needy. this is a federal government handout that will disproportionately benefit americans who are better off. the student loan giveaway will do nothing -- nothing to address the root of the problem. and that is soaring college costs. in fact, it's likely to make things worse. faced with the knowledge that many of their students will never have to fully pay off their loans, colleges will have

zero incentive to cut costs. and students are likely to feel less pressure to choose a more affordable college option since there is a good chance they will have to pay back only part of their student loan debt and might have it forgiven entirely. it's not hard to imagine a future democrat president deciding it's politically expedient to imitate president biden and just cancel a huge portion of student loan debt outright especially since college costs and college debt will continue to soar under the president's plan. mr. president, whether president biden has the legal authority to implement the debt cancellation he proposed is really questionable. he used a law called the hero's act drafted to give the president authority to provide

student loan relief in times of war or national emergency and specifically to provide relief to the large number of soldiers deployed in the middle east in the wake of september 11. it was not intended to provide for widespread student loan forgiveness in a time of peace and low unemployment. the president himself raised questions about his authority to forgive student loans in a town hall meeting. the spoark speaker of the house stated plainly -- plainly that the president didn't have this authority. in between bullying from the far left in prospect of gaining votes in the 2022 elections, the president went ahead anyway. and now taxpayers will be saddled with close to an

additional trillion dollars in debt on top of the other reckless spending by the biden administration and the democrat congress. mr. president, it's not just republicans who have raised serious concerns about the president's student loan plans. so has "the washington post." and at least one scholar at the left of center brookings institution and the nonpartisan committee for a responsible federal budget where, as i said earlier, the president's own treasury secretary once served. and the list goes on. the president's student loan giveaway is yet another disastrous economic plan coming from the biden administration. and, mr. president, if it goes into effect, it will be the american taxpayers who once again will be paying the price.

mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quoru:

test. quorum call:

>> thanks for that. amy next up in jacksonville, florida, opposing the president plan. >> hello? >> you are on the air. >> hello. yes, i don't oppose necessarily but i oppose this plan because i really see as a band-aid, a half measure because it does not address the legislation that created this student loan crisis. student loans are the only debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. so naturally if banks can lower out money and not worry and have loans guaranteed and the lungs

can never be discharged in bankruptcy, they're just going to hand out many by candy and that's pretty much what they do for the last 20 years. and we have students do not have to pass credit checks or background checks to get student loans and their young and they still really do not understand how money works and paying off debt when you take out these loans. so i really feel like congress, our entire nation is a a disservice by passing that law and making it so we could not discharge the loans in bankruptcy. so i think everybody, if we need to, to declare bankruptcy, , evy person should be able to do that but right now as it is a good is just being crushed by this. the young people at least.

when i went to school i qualified for $9000 in student loans and and i got a coupll grants, and i paid it off. that was in the '90s. '90s. but it's a much different situation in the last 20 years. the student loan industry has been very predatory on our people. so until we can address that, the small forgiveness, the 10,000 or 20,000 20,000, it's not addressing the real issues. yes, we can forgive a little bit now but it think we should go to a free tuition for public universities. and then also limit the amount that people can borrow. and also make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. >> host: thanks for that

perspective, , amy. our cameras outside the supreme court. not just to show the protest but as happens after many cases, the oral argument anyway, it is likely that attorneys on both sides will come to the cameras and speak to reporters about the oral argument. we hope to have some of that for you certainly enter later program schedule c-span networks. one of the states challenging the biden plan is nebraska. the attorney general is, has an opinion piece and the "wall street journal," why we're challenging biden student debt power grip turkey right nebraska has challenged president biden's unilateral and unlawful discharge of hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt. the supreme court will hear the case tuesday. at stake is more than the $430 billion hole mr. bayh this plan would blow in the federal budget, says the case poses a major test for the separation of powers under the constitution. you can read more at wsj.com.

alexis up next support student debt relief, the president's plan. north carolina. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'll be 75 in may, and the lady just before me recounted all the reasons that these loans should be forgiven, except that there's no follow-up plan to alter it. and they think get out and vote 2024. and i still vote. i still have, i just got a hundred 10,000. it's just, i am paying only because they did -- excuse me -- the forgiveness plan. i am against the forgiveness

plan just because i've been used due to to be telling with my money, and my daughters-in-law and all with skyrocketing loans, and when this forgiveness moratorium ends, they are really going to have to cut back. >> host: if you can, alexis, when you say skyrocketing loans how much do your daughters oh? >> caller: okay. one of those 40,000, and the other oppose like 35. no. they don't have 250,000-dollar loans, you knew, where have gone to med school and then had to concentrate on a particular interest, but if you can't pay it, they are of the nhl with you want to start a family, where they want to buy a house, and

they've got good credit but the bank comes back and says your income to debt limit is too high. >> host: another viewer comments on by house. he says i'm currently looking for a new home. i cannot believe the mortgage companies actually want me to show enough income to pay off the mortgage if the monthly payment with tax and insurance at $5000 a month a month. they require around $15,000 a month in income or you don't get approved. another comet, it said people who have suffered the burden of student loan debt wish that hardship on others. sheldon is in huntington station new york on our student debt line. go ahead, sheldon. >> caller: good morning how are you? >> host: find thanks. >> caller: so i support what the president is trying to do. i wish there were more he could do an amount having a a hard e if i'm listening to these overcall is talking about who

has authority, or even if you say you move out of his act, specific language of it and who is saying it is too broad, when you look at two important court cases, back in the 1920s the court said you have to show actual damage, not some imagined supposedly much. the court seemed to double down and reaffirmed that in the recent case of what was it, amnesty international where the said again you have to show real impending, real damage, not some likelihood of it. i'm not sure if these people when it comes, understand the constitution if they're just about it at all. i almost went to law school. i was an undergrad constitutional law ta so i'm having a hard time with people venting their emotions and not knowing the law and not

understanding what at stake here. >> host: there is more ahead on this topic thought the program here in "washington journal." we continue our conversation this morning on the two supreme court cases coming up this morning beginning at ten on the consideration of president biden's student loan forgiveness plan. joining us to talk about that are elizabeth wydra, president of the constitutional accountability center and joining us from heritage foundation giancarlo canaparo who is legal and judicial studies senior fellow, legal fellow. thanks to both of you for being in here. first of all elizabeth tell us what the constitutional accountability center is. >> guest: we are a a nonprofit public interest law firm in washington, d.c. that seeks to make real the progressive promise of the constitution. we look at the whole constitution as amended over time by generations of activists and abolitionists that a push our country along an arc of progress and made our country

through these constitutional changes more inclusive, more equitable and has made our national charter more just. >> host: as a get and where conversation this month we did this earlier in the program and i want to remind viewers of the planned at the president announced last august which would cancel up to to $10,00n federal student loan debt for those making $125,000 a year or less, or couples 250 in annual income. if you are of the recient an additional $10,000 in debt forgiveness. there will be 43 million borrowers eligible for that debt forgiveness come 20 million of us could have that debt erased entirely. cbo says congressional budget office in the program costing about $400 $400 billion ovt three decades. there's more here at stake than just the legality of the president's plan pictures also the consideration of whether the states in the first case have

legal standing to bring the case. dallas more about that and what is your view on the standing of those six states? >> caller: ? >> guest: stan is legal doctrine rises out of article iii. if you want to be able to bring a lawsuit in federal court just have an injury caused by the other side that a court can fix. has to be a real entry and not a concrete one given number of injuries alleged hereby states in individual plaintiffs in the second case. you only need one plaintiff to reach the mayor so i will focus on each lead plaintiff in each case. nebraska -- mercury has probably the strongest argument. it says that a suffered harm or will suffer harm for this debt cancellation plan because it operates a state entity which services student loans. it gets paid money for every student loan that the federal government issues which it services and when biden cancels student loans it will suffer the

loss of that revenue. the student in this case has a weaker argument and he makes the claim that because he was not eligible for student loan relief -- >> host: in the second case. >> guest: . right. he was not able to participate in normal rule-making process. >> host: so in the standing issue, elizabeth wydra, the court as shown very favorable to be both an democratic and republican administrations and favorable to the issue of standing. what do you think the court will see when you take on the first case today? >> guest: that will be a big issue and the united states who we represented today by solicitor general elizabeth pre-logger will make a strong argument that there is an standing here, that you don't even get to the merits of the case because as giancarlo discussed isn't an arm of the state.

in in in a corporation. it could sue in his own behalf if it wanted to and individual who are suing what greater debt relief but if they declare the plant unlawful no one will get any relief so that there isn't related injury. the court has seen over time this pattern as use both republican and democratic administrations where a state attorneys general come to the court seeking to invalidate a plan. there might be the opportunity this time for the court to say this political plan is something that is constitutional or at least is not going to be challenged by these particular plaintiffs. we will see if the are any other plaintiffs who step up. >> host: technically it's not the president for giving the loan, it's the secretary of education under the heroes act. start with you elizabeth and tell his review of that bill that act that was passed in 2003 and whether it applies here.

>> guest: absolutely. you are exactly right, congress passed legislation that gives the secretary of education authority and discretion to waive or modify certain repayment obligations or regulations more generally related to federally held student loans. and here the heroes act particularly discusses national emergency. as we all know covid-19, covid-19 pandemic has been a declared national emergency since president trump first made that declaration. and in response to that we have seen the trump administration, secretary of education betsy devos first put a pause on student loan repayments and interest accruals for all federal loan borrowers. that was extended by the trump administration, extended by the biden administration. and in this particular instance, the secretary of education decided that they would stop

that loan repayment pause and go with a two-pronged approach. they would stop the repayment pause but then they would have targeted relief for low income borrowers, that they determined pursuant to the heroes act were more likely to be at risk of delinquency and default on the loan repayment. the secretary in august 2022 came up with his two-pronged targeted debt relief approach. we argue in a brief on behalf of one of the cosponsors and co-authors of the heroes act that this is plainly within the statutory text of the heroes act. >> host: giancarlo, your argument against, what would you say why the heroes act should not apply in this case? >> guest: a little bit of background context. the heroes act was passed shortly after 9/11 and was targeted at although as is typical is much broader language than reaching military servicemembers deployed overseas after 9/11 and to give them

relief. the operative language is weighed and modify but it's not all of operative language. the act is limited only to individuals who have suffered financial harm directly traceable to the underlying emergency which in this case is the covid-19 pandemic, and only to the extent necessary to keep them from being made worse off. really where i think biden will be in a lot of trouble with the supreme court is not necessarily the wave and modify language although there's reason to take it that would be, the court will think that language is at least at best ambiguous, in which case will be what's called major question doctrine realm elegant about but this necessary limitations is a problem for biden because he has made any effort to target the debt relief to the people who are actually suffering harm. his plan will apply, will get debt relief to 95.5% of all borrowers including people who make incomes in the top 5%.

>> host: elizabeth wydra, is that too broad a target? >> guest: i disagree did not taken care to target the debt relief. the secretary of education looked at historical and economic data to determine which class of borrowers were more likely to be included in the terms of the heroes act of 2003 which is one we're talking about, the one that was passed after the heroes act of 2001. they looked specifically to see who was more likely to be in the language see or default on these federally held loan payments. i think there's really no dispute that if we simply stop the repayment pause without any type of relief that people would be in a serious financial crisis, certain classes of borrowers would be. >> host: elizabeth wydra is president of the constitutional accountability center, and giancarlo canaparo is with the heritage foundation.

he is the legal and judicial study senior legal fellow. we welcome your calls and comment on the court cases today. here are the lines, republicans it is 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000 and independent and others, that is 202-748-8002. giancarlo, he started to talk about this term called the major questions of doctrine. tell us more about that and how that applies in this case. >> guest: the major questions doctrine most recently was expressed in supreme court's opinion of west virginia versus epa and what it said is when an executive branch agency looks at an older statute and reinterpret it in a way which it has not been used before, that raises the courts skepticism that perhaps the agency is claiming more power than congress gave it. what the court looks at is does the question at issue the policy at issue raise the questions of economic or political significance. dollar figures in that, you have

the court will look to public debate. and at that point if the court concludes that there is a major question involved by the public policy issue, it will say that congress must have authorized that in expressly clear language. language. congress may delegate to the executive branch powers of vast economic significance but only if it does so very clearly, go back to betsy devos. i think he used the word pause, pause the payments during covid. ditches use this, the heroes act as a basis? >> guest: absolutely, yes, she did. i think that the major questions doctrine is a really important topic to talk about. we get a whole hour just on that, but it doesn't even really apply here because there is this expressed delegation. it expressly gives the secretary of education discretion regarding loan repayment obligations, whether to waive or modify those. it expressly gives them in

connection with the national non-emergency which is unquestionably is. the first argument is a questions major doctrine doesn't even apply because there's express and very really broad discretion given to the sect of education. going back to the major questions doctrine itself, there is no historical or textual basis in the constitution for this doctrine. so with something that a think is going to be controversial for many supreme court terms to calm, and particularly when we have justices on the bench who profess to be originalists, the original meaning of the constitution. there isn't any basis in historical or textual constitutional history for that doctrine. >> host: was of the something that's come about just during the roberts court? >> guest: no. are traces of it in much longer, older cases. if i could respond to a couple point she made. the first is it's far from clear

that waive or modify even divorce from all the limitations in the statute is clear. for instant any case, mci telecommute occasion to the court said the word modify means to change modestly or minor fashion. could be the case adding waive or modify changes that but in west virginia versus epa the court said the definitional possibilities are not clear authorization. as to the point that secretary devos used this for pause and that is correct and it was a big rule but that conflates pauses conflate come complete with debt cancellation allies of basic distinction between policies which change the terms of repayment and policies which eliminate both the right and obligation for repayment. >> host: the potential decision, a decision the court could make in the first case is that the states don't have stand in this. what happens then? >> guest: so if there is to find a standing then the courts don't reach the merits at all. what would happen is you would have to see whether there was

some of the plaintiff who wanted to bring this case who was able to show that they have a concrete injury that is directly traceable to the secretaries at target -- >> host: that seems to be the second case with the two students? >> guest: yes, except that case a a standing problems as well. the united states makes a very strong argument what they're asking for is greater student debt relief, and the remedy that the court would offer declaring the program unlawful would give them no relief and nobody gets relief. so it would redress the injury claim we have calls waiting. one quick question unless both of you. how does a cost of the program enter into, does it in her into the come in to the court traitor if the court concludes which is unlikely that the statute is plainly clear and plain authorizes this action tendo. but if the court finds we are in the realm of the major questions doctrine and yes, it will almost certainly be found because as

far as i'm aware of the major question case has ever had such a big price tag. >> guest: the price tag really is not the important factor here. going back to the founding, there had been delegations of discretion to the executive branch by congress for major economic programs and trade and private conduct related, economic issues. we are talking about something, student debt, that as most americans know has an enormous price tag on it. those people who feel the burden of repayment certainly know that price tag. so having this targeted student debt relief program is the focus, it's the lawfulness of that program. it's not really the fact that big federal issues sometimes come with big federal price tags, let's go to our first call in st. paul, minnesota, on the independent line. thanks for waiting. go ahead with your question or

comment. >> caller: good morning. good morning to your guests. and this is a question maybe both can answer or one can answer. i'm in favor of this but i don't know if it's possible for the supreme court to modify this. because i think when you go to college are going to college to improve your status and you're going to learn some type of occupation. and i might be wrong but i think there's a statistic that those who go on to further education make $1 million more than those who do not. my other point is this. what did you do and elizabeth warren, i saw your clip, but when this all started at one time, she had a town hall. warren could not answer this. i'm a parent, i came in, my wife works. i work. we have two jobs and we gave up all our vacation time and reported all in to our

children's education. do you think they should get some compensation like a tax credit for some of the thing? and also, does this apply for all students that are going into further education like trade school or any type of school, vocation school? for their future. i just think you are focusing in on one group. what about the student that doesn't go to college, they get out, get in the world, that's got a car loan, an apartment loan, a house loan here what are you going to do for them? >> guest: the question at the beginning was whether the supreme court could modify this supreme court cannot. the supreme court takes it as the case comes. some of the other questions that the call the race, get into the question of fundamental fairness. that is an important consideration, one that is

properly debated in congress. the court is not going to engage in a holistic fairness argument but it underscores the fact that i take this out of the legislative branch and doing this the executive power, biden chose to did not allow the people's representatives to debate it. >> guest: i think congress has already granted discretion to the secretary, and when you become up with the targeted student debt relief they look particularly at data that along with the constraints of the here's act, which show who would likely be worse off because of the covid-19's endemic in relation to the student loan debt. so those who because of their low income were more likely to be in default or to link with the with respect to the student loan repayments, and targeted it specifically following the heroes act to that class of borrowers that it doesn't matter what school you went to him if you have a federally held alone, it applies to you.

some of these questions are policy choices. there were people who wanted the heroes act to go further and require, require the secretary of education a stud giving the secretary discretion, to forgive or waive or modify loan debt for people who were struggling. there are a lot of americans who are struggling. there are policy choices that congress can take up. what the secretary did is squarely within the secretary's discretion under what congress has already passed. >> host: next up is maria in massachusetts. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i don't know if this is, hideaway phrase of this, if we can compare this, but i the schr 11:30 take place now. the presiding officer: also without objection.

the question is on the nomination. is there al sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 52, nays are 41. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 17, jamal whitehead of washington to be united states district judge for the western district of washington, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of jamal whitehead of washington to be

united states district judge for the western district of washington shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

..

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 51. the nays are 43. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, jamal n. whitehead of washington to be

united states district judge for the western district of washington. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered -- apologize. i stand corrected. under the previous order, the when lawmakers return we'll bring you live coverage here on c-span is your unfiltered view of government we are funded by these television companies and more including media,. >> at media, we believe you live here or right here, or where in the middle of anywhere you should have access to fast reliable internet. that's why we're leading the w