Fake Conservatives in the GOP and Fake Liberals in the Democrat Party:
What about lawmakers who don't follow their own party platforms? A closer look at “Higher Education”
By Gordon Wayne Watts, Editor-in-Chief, The Register | Published: Friday, 13 May 2022 (Plant City, Fla.) |
Nat'l Dir., CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II (TM) ; UPDATED: Tuesday, 07 June 2022 |
| https://GordonWatts.com and https://GordonWayneWatts.com and https://ContractWithAmerica2.com |
As implied by the subtitle, our opinion piece here takes a closer look at the epic fail in American Higher Education from both ends of the political spectrum. So, before we get going, let's take a look at what it means to be a “fake” Republican or Democrat, by the textbook definition: Their own party platforms (and selected luminaries).
The GOP (the “Grand Old Party”) -- Republican Party Platform
First, let's look at the GOP: On page 35 of the Republican Party Platform[1], we see the GOP clearly says: “The federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans.” (1ST sentence of last paragraph, near bottom-right of page) [Editor's Note: This is page 42 of 66 of “PDF” page numbers, but the writer labels this as page “35,” since the first 7 pages weren't given regular page numbers.] The GOP is correct. It's a well-known fact that taxpayer-funded student loan subsidies (whether we merely guarantee loans or, rather, outright make them) increases costs of college: Colleges simply raise tuition to match increased borrowing capacity (harming students who see higher sticker price AND taxpayers footing the bill). Moreover, legendary Conservative icon, Dr. Bill Bennett, former Sec. of Education in the REAGAN administration, is known for the 'Bill Bennett Hypothesis': When you subsidize anything with taxpayer dollars, costs go up. Bennett, writing in his epic column to the NY Times[2], said “If anything, increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.” Furthermore, no matter your views on Trump, he towed the conservative line, as documented in a FORBES article titled “Trump Proposes Limits On Student Loan Borrowing.”[3] Lastly, former TRUMP Sec. of Education, Betsy DeVos, in her 11-27-2018 speech[4], strongly implied the need for cuts to taxpayer-funded or backed student loan subsidies in her stark warning on national debt: “Today, FSA's [student debt] portfolio is nearly 10 percent of our nation's debt. [] Stop and absorb that for a moment. Ten percent of our total national debt.” In fact, it's well-documented[5] that DeVos, apparently reading my 11-16-2018 column in The Ledger, copied & plagerised me almost verbatim, where I made similar complaints that lawmakers let college debt (almost $2t) become almost 10% of total U.S. Debt (then, slightly more than $20t),[5] in her 11-27-2018 speech, 11 days later. Besides documenting how DeVos, plagiarised me without attribution, you can see my quote in my 11-16-2018 column: “To be clear, I'm conservative and don't seek free college, loan forgiveness, or liberal free handouts,” which I add for clarify as I'm sometimes accused of being a “Free Handout Liberal” for reasons unclear to me.
So, how do today's crop of supposedly-Conservative GOP lawmakers measure up to party platform? Let's look at a few key votes: First, The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 109th Congress (2005-2006), Pub. L. 109–171 (FEB. 8, 2006), increased several Federal Student Loan limits[6] (in STARK violation[1] of the GOP's platform), and it's tempting to say “that's old 2006 law,” not applicable to current lawmakers. However, don't overlook current lawmakers who haven't filed ANY bills to reverse this harmful Liberal Swamp expansion of higher ed.
In plain English: EVERY SINGLE current GOP lawmaker is a flaming liberal R.I.N.O. in this regard.
Page 1
Fake Conservatives in the GOP and Fake Liberals in the Democrat Party, The Register, 5/13/2022
Strong accusation, eh? So, let's take a closer look, shall we: Pub. L. 109–171, The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, significantly increased[6] both FEDERAL INSURANCE LIMITS and GUARANTEE LIMITS.
Likewise, The Higher Education Opportunity Act, 110th Congress (2007-2008), Pub. L. 110–315 (AUG. 14, 2008), significantly increased PERKINS LOAN LIMITS[7] (also in STARK violation[1] of the GOP's platform), so it's about time to see who voted for this mess. But, before we do, it's worth noting that a few other bills were filed which didn't become law, but which made similar attempts: H.R.507, the “College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005”[8] and H.R.609, the “College Access and Opportunity Act of 2006”[9] (whose Senate companion bill was S.1614, the “Higher Education Amendments of 2005”)[9], 109th Congress (2005-2006), both bills filed by former Speaker of the House, Rep. John A. Boehner [R-OH-8], attempted to increase various student loan limits, which were later increased by amendments to the U.S. Code by Pub. L. 109-171 and Pub. L. 110–315, after H.R. 507 and H.R.609 failed to pass into law.
Before moving on to “bad Democrats,” however, it is not without moment that boatloads of supposedly “Conservative” Republican lawmakers piled on to support both widely unpopular Liberal tax/spend TARP/Mortgage bailout bills, one of which became law: H.R.1424, the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008”[10], 110th Congress (2007-2008), passed both House and Senate and become PUBLIC LAW 110-343 on OCT. 03, 2008, while H.R.3997, the “Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007”[11], 110th Congress (2007-2008), failed passage as the original House vehicle for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Both bills -- colloquially known as the “Financial Asset Purchase Authority,” to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (T.A.R.P.) to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase troubled assets from any financial institution -- were especially unpopular in “Red State” congressional districts -- but that didn't stop these Establishment R.I.N.O. Republicans from piling on, so it's worth a closer look at their voting records.
Indeed, these “career lawmakers” in the “august” and “solemn” bodies of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate should know better -- even without any “nudge” from the common man. My father, the late Bobby Watts -- rest in peace, dad -- once told me that our leaders should not need ANY input from us, but rather know and do the right thing ON THEIR OWN. Dad was right. That said, as documented in The Register's Dec. 04, 2021 news item, this undersigned writer personally contacted both his own Florida lawmakers (Rep. C. Scott Franklin, R-FL-15, and Senators Marco Rubio, R-FL and Rick Scott, R-FL), and (later, on 12-20-2021) selected party leaders, asking them where they stood on this issue, and informing them of the financial threats we face, e.g., excessive Liberal Higher Ed taxpayer-funded student loan subsidies, i.e., unneeded (and quite harmful) Liberal Pork -- this, and 2 other issues: https://GordonWatts.com/#inquiry or: https://GordonWayneWatts.com/#inquiry if you will: As the official archives will show, this news item (which was “UPDATED: Mon.20 Dec. 2021”) did, indeed, publish back in late 2021: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211220182734/https://gordonwatts.com/#inquiry And: https://Archive.ph/ElYrV#inquiry Indeed, in my various columns[5], posted in the “staff” section of my professional page, https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/#staff And: https://Archive.ph/rL3A7#staff Or: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220502181841/https://contractwithamerica2.com/#staff I have, for years (perhaps, decades) been calling on lawmakers to stop the insane hemorrhaging bleedout of this excessive -- and unnecessary -- indeed, harmful -- liberal pork higher ed subsidy spending to make or guarantee “student loans.” So, these “Fake Conservatives in the GOP” are without excuse as to their conduct and behaviour. Future press inquiries of these lawmakers will have ONE question:
-- QUESTION: “Why have you not, as yet, filed legislation that seeks to reverse these toxic bills that go against our Republican Party's official platform?[1] GOP PLATFORM QUOTE: “The federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans.”[1] -- Multiple choice answer:
[[A]] I really don't support the Republican Party's stated platform, above; I'm really a Liberal R.I.N.O.
[[B]] I do support the GOP platform, but haven't filed or co-sponsored any such bills because:
[[1]] Exigent “emergency” circumstances (fill in the blank).
[[2]] Lack of student loan bankruptcy self-defense to provide Conservative “Free Market” check on the Dept of Ed's insane and excessive lending has allowed lobbyists to make subsidy/spending cuts politically impossible, but I shall immediately support student loan bankruptcy legislation to make this so.
[[3]] I *have* filed / co-sponsored spending cuts legislation (fill in the blank).
Page 2
Fake Conservatives in the GOP and Fake Liberals in the Democrat Party, The Register, 5/13/2022
Before moving on to address fake Liberals in the Democrat Party, however, I must concede one possible over-statement, above: Above, I said that “EVERY SINGLE current GOP lawmaker is a flaming liberal R.I.N.O. in this regard,” regarding their defense of Liberal tax/spend policies (and refusal to file legislation to reverse this), and -- technically -- that is true: ABSOLUTELY NO lawmakers (GOP, Democrat, Independant, or otherwise) have filed any bills to reverse these toxic loan-limit increases, but -- to be fair/honest -- there were a few recent attempts to do the same thing through a different mechanism: H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education. 117th Congress (2021-2022)[12] and S.323 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education. 117th Congress (2021-2022)[13] were both filed this session. Now, while I must admit that these bills, were they to become law, would effectively do the same thing as the elimination of taxpayer-funded student loan originations (which is called for in the GOP Party Platform), let's be real here, folks: These bills don't stand a chance of passage even in a GOP-controlled House and Senate, much less in the current political environment. While credit must be given for the filed legislation, nonetheless, this reminds me of the vocal GOP complaints of the ACA (the Affordable Care Act aka “ObamaCare”), but when they (when “we” Republicans) got in office, it was not fully repealed, and even the repeal of the mandate was not without much resistance -- so, I remain skeptical of the true motives of these brave lawmakers: If they're so serious, why not file additional legislation that reduces or eliminates taxpayer-funded student loan originations -- as our party platform call for? ( -- Crickets -- )
As Arsenio Hall famously said: “Things that make you go: 'hmm...'.”
OK, now we bravely move on to address fake Liberals in the Democrat Party, but before we get going, let's take a look at what it means to be a “fake” Democrat, by the textbook definition: Their own party platform (and selected luminaries).
The “Democratic Party Platform”:
First, let's look at the Democrats' official platform: On page 71 of the 2020 Democratic Party Platform[14], we see they clearly say that: “Democrats will also empower the CFPB to take action against exploitative lenders and will work with Congress to allow student debt to be discharged during bankruptcy.” (p.72, par.1, sentence 2) [Editor's Note: This is page 72 of 92 of “PDF” page numbers, but the writer labels this as page “71,” since there's a title page that offsets numbering by one.] The Democrats are correct: For them to be ok with “rich” business and credit card users having all standard consumer protections for many unsecured loans (without any collateral in many cases), even gamblers having credit card self-defense, but not poor{{**}}, middle-class students, is just plain anathema to the Democrat Party's “equality” ethos. {{**}}Only poor students take out loans: Rich students never need them. Moreover, numerous legendary Liberal icons support restoration of bankruptcy (and other standard consumer protections) back to college loans, like it was back when the system worked: President Biden[15], himself, is on record as supporting Sen. Warren's bankruptcy reform plan[20], which is quoted as saying: “End the absurd rules that make it nearly impossible to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy.” Moreover, Vice President, Kamala Harris[16], herself, was an “Original cosponsor” of S.1414 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019[16]. Sen. Dick Durbin[17] is a frequent supporter of legislation that would return bankruptcy and other standard consumer protections to student loans, as is Rep. Jerry Nadler[18], both Durbin and Nadler being the chairpersons of their respective Judiciary Committees and Senate and House respectively. Legendary progressive senators, Bernie Sanders[19] and Elizabeth Warren[20], as well as legendary civil rights activist, former Congressman Lacy Clay[21]. So, how do today's crop of supposedly-Liberal Democrat lawmakers and other politicians (President and Vice President) measure up to party platform? While this undersigned writer as a far-right Conservative Republican, he must be honest and admit that “those Democrats” have done much better at practicing what they preach than “we Republicans.”
That said, Democrats have occasionally held House, Senate, and Oval Office, as they did in the 111th Congress (2009–2010) with majorities in both chambers and with President Barack Obama, also a Democrat -- and Democrats currently hold House, Senate, and Oval Office, in this, the 117th Congress (2021–2022), with President Joe Biden, also a Democrat. Yet, even Democrats, who are “better” at practicing what they preach, have fallen woefully short of controlling the costs of college (either via price controls or “free market” means like reducing taxpayer-funded subsidies). In fact, Pres. Biden[22] -- while a U.S. Senator -- violated his own party's standards in his zeal to make it more difficult for student borrowers to have bankruptcy discharge available should they need it -- like every other borrower has
Page 3
Fake Conservatives in the GOP and Fake Liberals in the Democrat Party, The Register, 5/13/2022
for every other loan instrument. Moreover, recently, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), has receded[23] aka “flip-flopped” on her original support of student loan bankruptcy equality, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's Bankruptcy Uniformity clause (Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4)[24], for reasons known only to herself.
Thus, Democrats, while better at adherence to their own platform (as opposed to fake hypocrisy like, sadly, my own GOP Republican Party), nonetheless, fall woefully short of accomplishing their stated goals, such as student loan bankruptcy -- as shown by the legislative record of past and present Student Loan Bankruptcy bills, H.R.2648, 116th[25], S.1414, 116th[26], H.R.4907, 117th[27], and S.2598, 117th[28]. So, these “Fake Liberals in the Democrat Party” are without excuse as to their conduct and behaviour. Future press inquiries of these lawmakers will have ONE question:
-- QUESTION: “Why have you not, as yet, filed legislation that seeks to enact meaningful student loan bankruptcy equality, as promised by your own Democratic Party Platform[14]? 2020 Democratic Party Platform QUOTE: “Democrats will also empower the CFPB to take action against exploitative lenders and will work with Congress to allow student debt to be discharged during bankruptcy.”[14] -- Multiple choice answer:
[[A]] I really don't support the Democrat Party's stated platform, above; I'm really a Conservative D.I.N.O.
[[B]] I do support the Democratic platform, but haven't filed or co-sponsored any such bills because:
[[1]] Exigent “emergency” circumstances (fill in the blank).
[[2]] I *have* filed / co-sponsored student loan bankruptcy legislation (fill in the blank).
EXTRA CREDIT
The Affordable Care Act (ACA, colloquially known as “ObamaCare”) is well-known for being a “Healthcare” bill that Democrats fought to pass into law. But -- did you know that it took a toll on college students? Indeed, the ACA had provision to Federalize (purchase with taxpayer funds) student loan program -- which had the unintended effect of sky-high tuition: Colleges jack up tuition, confident that the taxpayers will foot the bill. PROOF: “As of July 8, 2016, the federal government owned approximately $1 trillion in outstanding consumer debt, per data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. That figure was up from less than $150 billion in January 2009, representing a nearly 600% increase over that time span. The main culprit is student loans, which the federal government effectively monopolized in a little-known provision of the Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010. [] Prior to the Affordable Care Act, a majority of student loans originated with a private lender but were guaranteed by the government, meaning taxpayers foot the bill if student borrowers default.” Source: “Who Actually Owns Student Loan Debt?,”[29] by Sean Ross, INVESTOPEDIA, Updated April 10, 2020.
That begs the question: Who actually voted for the Affordable Care Act, knowing that this “poison pill” was in there?
CONCLUSION:
Thus, any Republicans who voted for The Affordable Care Act were fake Conservatives (did not follow “smaller government” or “less spending” creed, not to mention how the ACA failed to eliminate the insurance middleman, also not “less government” or “less regulation”), a cause of higher costs: County plans usually don't have middleman, and thus cost taxpayers less.
Also, any Democrats who voted for The Affordable Care Act were fake Liberals because increased subsidies (we now made and owned almost all student loans) enticed colleges to raise costs of college to new, unheard of sky high tuition inflation levels, not to mention how healthcare costs increased for many (probably most) people, costing patients and taxpayers.
Therefore, it would be wise to (#1.) Reduce and/or eliminate use of taxpayer subsidies/funds to originate (make) or back (guarantee) ANY student loans (as Republicans claim to seek, in our platform), (#2.) Strongly consider “Rule of Law” price controls on colleges (for good measure) and/or directly fund higher education (like we do with Public Education), simply because it would not only save *students*, but (and more-importantly) save **taxpayers** (because we could control costs like we do with Public Ed), and to make all this possible, (#3.) it is Sine Qua Non that we finally restore student loan bankruptcy and other standard consumer protections (truth in lending; bankruptcy proceedings; statutes of limits; the right to refinance; adherence to usury laws; and, Fair Debt & Collection practices,
Page 4
Fake Conservatives in the GOP and Fake Liberals in the Democrat Party, The Register, 5/13/2022
etc.), as Democrats have claimed to support: Only with the threat of bankruptcy to make the Dept of Ed more reluctant to lend out trillions of our dollars will we stop the hemorrhaging bleedout of trillions of our tax dollars, “throwing good money after bad,” enabling colleges to blithely raise tuition to match increased student loan borrowing capacity -- harming students who see unaffordable tuition, and taxpayers who foot the bill. (#4.) MASSIVE FRAUD: After all, since it is well-documented that there has been massive fraud (see “Clear Understanding” section of research page below), easily-justifying student loan debt cancellation -- and then some--PROOF:
FLAGSHIP PAGE: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/#clear
Mirror-1: https://GordonWatts.com/n.index.html#clear
Mirror-2: https://GordonWayneWatts.com/n.index.html#clear
Archive-1: https://Archive.ph/rL3A7#clear
Archive-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220502181841/https://contractwithamerica2.com/#clear
THE CLAIM: Students have repaid taxpayers $1.22 for EVERY $1.00 that taxpayers have lent them -- when looking just at how gov't recovers $1.22 from every $1.00 of defaulted student loans -- probably more when you consider that loans in good standing have no repayment problems. THE PROOF:
FLAGSHIP PAGE: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/#PaidInFull
Mirror-1: https://GordonWatts.com/n.index.html#PaidInFull
Mirror-2: https://GordonWayneWatts.com/n.index.html#PaidInFull
Archive-1: https://Archive.ph/rL3A7#PaidInFull
Archive-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220502181841/https://contractwithamerica2.com/#PaidInFull
CONCLUSION: So, in light of that, wouldn't it be fair and honest to at least restore Standard Consumer Protections -- like all other loans have? If Republicans in the GOP don't want to see em masse default and/or cancellation and/or a crash of the dollar (all very likely scenarios), then we'd better have our “Conservative alternative,” namely join Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO), John Cornyn (R-TX), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and many Democrats on S.2598 and H.R.4907, the necessary Free Market check needed to avoid an all-out crash of the dollar and collapse of the economy:
Mirror-1: https://GordonWatts.com/#crash
Mirror-2: https://GordonWayneWatts.com/#crash
Archive-1: https://Archive.ph/Wtr0Y#crash
Archive-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220504134218/https://gordonwatts.com/#crash
** UPDATE : Since publication of this editorial, a statistical analysis was done, and the findings were as follows:
REPUBLICAN: Even being generous , only eight-point fourteen (8.14%) percent of all republican lawmakers are in compliance with their own Republican Party Platform which prohibits federal tax dollars from originating (making) student loans.
DEMOCRAT: By contrast, even being “very generous” with Democrat lawmakers, and looking at the most successful effort in recent congressional sessions, probably the most successful (albeit failed) attempt by Democrats to obey their party platform on STUDENT LOAN BANKRUPTCY RESTORATION, only eighteen-point one (18.1%) percent of all democrat lawmakers are in compliance with their own Democratic Party Platform on this key issue, more than double the GOP compliance, but still woefully short to avert a crash of the dollar, as described above.
Sources:
[1] QUOTE: On page 35 of the Republican Party Platform[1], we see the GOP clearly says: “The federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans.” (1ST sentence of last paragraph, near bottom-right of page) [Editor's Note: This is page 42 of 66 of “PDF” page numbers, but the writer labels this as page “35,” since the first 7 pages weren't given regular page numbers.] Source: “REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2016,” used under Fair Use for commentary, criticism, and research. Editor's Note: This author could not find a more current version, such as 2020 or more recent.
LINK: https://Prod-Cdn-Static.GOP.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf
Archive-2: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
See also: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/31/student-debt-forgiveness-could-become-a-bipartisan-issue.html
Page 5
Fake Conservatives in the GOP and Fake Liberals in the Democrat Party, The Register, 5/13/2022
See also: https://www.NewAmerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/republican-platform-higher-education-mess/
[2] QUOTE: “If anything, increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.” Source: “Our Greedy Colleges,” By Dr. William J. “Bill” Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Ronald Reagan, The New York Times, 18 February 1987,
LINK: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/18/opinion/our-greedy-colleges.html
Archive-1: https://Archive.vn/PF1pT
[3] “Trump Proposes Limits On Student Loan Borrowing,” By Zack Friedman, FORBES, Tue. March 19, 2019, LINK: https://www.Forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2019/03/19/trump-proposes-limits-on-student-loans
Archive-2: https://Archive.vn/Sa8n1
[4] QUOTE: “Today, FSA's [student debt] portfolio is nearly 10 percent of our nation's debt. [] Stop and absorb that for a moment. Ten percent of our total national debt.” Source: U.S. Dept of Education, Sec. of Education, Betsy DeVos, 11-27-2018 speech,
LINK: https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-us-secretary-education-betsy-devos-federal-student-aids-training-conference [Editor's Note: Dept of Ed link is bad due to webmaster updated, but shown for clarity.]
Archive-1: https://Archive.vn/aRKbd
Archive-3: https://GordonWatts.com/DeVos-speech_11-27-2018_PDF.pdf
Archive-4: https://GordonWayneWatts.com/DeVos-speech_11-27-2018_PDF.pdf
Archive-5: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DeVos-speech_11-27-2018_PDF.pdf
[5] QUOTE: “On Nov. 16, 2018, The Ledger published my column decrying skyrocketing tuition and mounting student debt, paid for by our tax dollars. [] Apparently, in response to my column, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, in her speech 11 days later, repeated my complaints that “collegiate debt, now almost $2 trillion, is almost 10 percent of total U.S. debt.” I quote her: “Today, FSA’s [student debt] portfolio is nearly 10 percent of our nation’s debt. Stop and absorb that for a moment. Ten percent of our total national debt.” [] Apparently, this chain reaction even influenced the president to fall in line with conservative spending cuts: Forbes reported on March 19, 2019, that “Trump proposes limits on student loan borrowing.” [] Despite even getting the president’s attention, nothing has changed. Lawmakers didn’t grant his request, and President Donald Trump, distracted by other issues, has dropped this. Based on that, I maintain my initial prediction of a crash of the dollar if lawmakers refuse to cut spending.” Source: “Polk Perspective: Offer relief for taxes dressed up as ’loans’,” By Gordon Wayne Watts, Guest columnist, The Ledger, November 19, 2019,
LINK: https://TheLedger.com/opinion/20191119/polk-perspective-offer-relief-for-taxes-dressed-up-as-loans
Archive-1: https://Archive.vn/2gdEW
[6] PL 109-171:
PUBLIC LAW 109–171—FEB. 8, 2006
DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005, 109th Congress (2005-2006)
GUARANTEED LOANS.—Section 428(a)(5) (20 U.S.C. 1078(a)(5)) is amended—
Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 109–171, §8004(b)(2), substituted "2012" and "2016" for "2004" and "2008", respectively.
SEC. 8005. LOAN LIMITS.
FEDERAL INSURANCE LIMITS.—Section 425(a)(1)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1075(a)(1)(A)) is amended—
Subsec. (a)(1)(A)(i)(I). Pub. L. 109–171, §8005(a)(1), substituted "$3,500" for "$2,625".
Subsec. (a)(1)(A)(ii)(I). Pub. L. 109–171, §8005(a)(2), substituted "$4,500" for "$3,500".
GUARANTEE LIMITS.—Section 428(b)(1)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(A)) is amended—
Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(i)(I). Pub. L. 109–171, §8005(b)(1), substituted "$3,500" for "$2,625".
Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(ii)(I). Pub. L. 109–171, §8005(b)(2), substituted "$4,500" for "$3,500".
UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE.—
Subsec. (a)(3)(A)(v)(III). Pub. L. 109–171, §8014(j)(1), added subcl. (III).
S.1932 - Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 109th Congress (2005-2006)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/1932
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-109s1932enr.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: https://www.Senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1091/vote_109_1_00303.htm
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_S1932-109th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/UCllG
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-109s1932enr.pdf https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220507013116/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1091/vote_109_1_00303.htm
H.R.4241 - Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 109th Congress (2005-2006)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/4241
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-109hr4241rh.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: https://Clerk.House.gov/Votes/2005601
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_HR4241-109th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/mkZMq
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220507012829/https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2005601
XML format LINK: https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2005/roll601.xml
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-109hr4241rh.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/S4MtJ or: https://Archive.ph/6DnCK
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20210125093143/https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2005/roll601.xml
[7] Pub. L. 110–315:
PUBLIC LAW 110–315—AUG. 14, 2008
HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY ACT, 110th Congress (2007-2008)
SEC. 464. PERKINS LOAN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
(a) LOAN LIMITS.—Section 464(a) (20 U.S.C. 1087dd(a)) is amended—
2008-Subsec. (a)(2)(A). Pub. L. 110–315, §464(a)(1), substituted "$5,500" for "$4,000" in cl. (i) and "$8,000" for "$6,000" in cl. (ii).
Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Pub. L. 110–315, §464(a)(2), substituted "$60,000" for "$40,000" in cl. (i), "$27,500" for "$20,000" in cl. (ii), and "$11,000" for "$8,000" in cl. (iii).
(b) DISCHARGE AND CANCELLATION RIGHTS IN CASES OF DISABILITY.—(1) AMENDMENT.—Section 464 (20 U.S.C. 1087dd(c)) is further amended—
Subsec. (c)(1)(F). Pub. L. 110–315, §464(b)(1)(A), substituted "cancelled-" and cls. (i) to (iv) for "canceled upon the death of the borrower, or if he becomes permanently and totally disabled as determined in accordance with regulations of the Secretary;".
S.1642 - Higher Education Amendments of 2007, 110th Congress (2007-2008)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1642
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-110s1642es.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: https://www.Senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1101/vote_110_1_00275.htm
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_S1642-110th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/fMiDU
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-110s1642es.pdf https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220507012541/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1101/vote_110_1_00275.htm
H.R.4137 - Higher Education Opportunity Act, 110th Congress (2007-2008)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/4137
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-110hr4137enr.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: https://Clerk.House.gov/Votes/200840
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_HR4137-110th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/iUhFZ
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20201109062033/https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/200840
XML format LINK: https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2008/roll040.xml
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-110hr4137enr.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/BCuTc
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211207200940/https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll040.xml
[8] Bill which did not become Public Law:
H.R.507 - College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, 109th Congress (2005-2006)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/507
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-109hr507ih.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: No roll call vote listed in bill summary. What about sponsors, etc.?
Sponsor: Rep. Boehner, John A. [R-OH-8] (Introduced 02/02/2005)
Cosponsor: Rep. McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [R-CA-25]* 02/02/2005
Archive (bill): https://Archive.ph/4kGH4
Archive (bill): https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211217090602/https://www.Congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/507
Archive (text): https://Archive.ph/x2VHs
Archive (text): https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220512184456/https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/507/text
Would have done the following:
SEC. 422. LOAN LIMITS.
(a) FEDERAL INSURANCE LIMITS.—Section 425(a)(1)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1075(a)(1)(A)) is amended— [[which was later amended by Pub. L. 109-171, on Feb. 8, 2006, after H.R.507, introduced on 2/2/2005 failed to pass]]
(1) in clause (i)(I), by striking ‘‘$2,625’’ and inserting ‘‘$3,500’’; and
(2) in clause (ii)(I), by striking ‘‘$3,500’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,500’’.
(b) GUARANTEE LIMITS.—Section 428(b)(1)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(A)) is amended—
(1) in clause (i)(I), by striking ‘‘$2,625’’ and inserting ‘‘$3,500’’; and
(2) in clause (ii)(I), by striking ‘‘$3,500’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,500’’.
SEC. 462. LOAN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
(a) LOAN LIMITS.—Section 464(a) (20 U.S.C. 1087dd(a))— [[which was later amended by Pub. L. 110–315, on Aug. 14, 2008, after H.R.507, introduced on 2/2/2005 failed to pass]]
(1) in paragraph (2)(A)—
(A) by striking ‘‘$4,000’’ in clause (i) and inserting ‘‘$5,500’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘$6,000’’ in clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘$8,000’’; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(B)—
(A) by striking ‘‘$40,000’’ in clause (i) and inserting ‘‘$60,000’’;
(B) by striking ‘‘$20,000’’ in clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘$27,500’’; and
(C) by striking ‘‘$8,000’’ in clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘$11,000’’.
[9] Bill which did not become Public Law:
H.R.609 - College Access and Opportunity Act of 2006, 109th Congress (2005-2006)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/609
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-109hr609pcs.pdf
Sponsor: Rep. Boehner, John A. [R-OH-8] (Introduced 02/08/2005)
Cosponsors: Rep. McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [R-CA-25] ; Resident Commissioner Fortuno, Luis G. [R-PR-At Large] ; Rep. Bonilla, Henry [R-TX-23] ; Rep. Gerlach, Jim [R-PA-6] ; Rep. Kline, John [R-MN-2] ; Rep. Price, Tom [R-GA-6] ; Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18] ; Rep. Lewis, Ron [R-KY-2]
ROLL CALL VOTE: https://Clerk.House.gov/Votes/200681
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_HR609-109th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/BR6kZ
Archive: http://Web.Archive.org/web/20220509153112/https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/200681
XML format LINK: https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2006/roll081.xml
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_XML_HR609-109th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/xhBzH
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211207202310/https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2006/roll081.xml
S.1614 - Higher Education Amendments of 2005, 109th Congress (2005-2006)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/1614
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-109s1614rs.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: No roll call vote listed in bill summary. What about sponsors, etc.?
Sponsor: Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY] (Introduced 09/06/2005)
Cosponsor: Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA]* 09/06/2005
Would have done the following:
SEC. 462. LOAN TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
(a) LOAN LIMITS.—Section 464(a) (20 U.S.C. 1087dd(a)) is amended— [[which was later amended by Pub. L. 110–315, on Aug. 14, 2008, after H.R.609, introduced on 2/8/2005 failed to pass -- NOTE: H.R.609 was introduced shortly after H.R.507, which was introduced on 2/2/2005]]
(1) in paragraph (2)(A)—
(A) by striking ‘‘$4,000’’ in clause (i) and inserting ‘‘$5,500’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘$6,000’’ in clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘$8,000’’; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(B)—
(A) by striking ‘‘$40,000’’ in clause (i) and inserting ‘‘$60,000’’;
(B) by striking ‘‘$20,000’’ in clause (ii) and inserting ‘‘$27,500’’; and
(C) by striking ‘‘$8,000’’ in clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘$11,000’’.
[10] Pub. L. 110-343:
PUBLIC LAW 110-343—OCT. 03, 2008
Short title: “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008”
Colloquial title: “Mortgage Bailout”
Official title: “H.R.1424 - A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.” 110th Congress (2007-2008)
H.R.1424 - “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” 110th Congress (2007-2008)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/1424
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-110hr1424eh.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE (HOUSE) Roll Call 101 | Bill Number: H. R. 1424:
Vote Question: On Passage (MAR 05, 2008, 08:03 PM)
LINK: https://Clerk.House.gov/Votes/2008101
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_Mar-05-2008_HOUSE_OnPassage_HR1424-110th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/hcO5a
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20210411041630/https://Clerk.House.gov/Votes/2008101
XML format LINK: https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2008/roll101.xml
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_XML_Mar-05-2008_HOUSE_OnPassage_HR1424-110th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/Z6rXk
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211207200909/https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2008/roll101.xml
ROLL CALL VOTE (SENATE) Roll Call Vote 110th Congress - 2nd Session:
Vote Question: On Passage of the Bill (H. R. 1424 As Amended ) (October 1, 2008, 09:22 PM)
Vote Number: 213 ; Vote Date: October 1, 2008, 09:22 PM ; Required For Majority: 3/5 ; Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 1424
LINK: https://www.Senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1102/vote_110_2_00213.htm
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_SENATE_HR1424-110th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/C1zXw
ROLL CALL VOTE (HOUSE) Roll Call 681 | Bill Number: H. R. 1424:
Vote Question: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments (OCT 03, 2008, 01:22 PM)
LINK: https://Clerk.House.gov/Votes/2008681
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_Oct-03-2008_HOUSE_OnConcurAmendments_HR1424-110th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/22LNr
Archive: http://Web.Archive.org/web/20220509151400/https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2008681
XML format LINK: https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
Archive: https://Archive.ph/LtDe4
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211107073514/https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220412134932/https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
[11] Bill which did not become Public Law:
H.R.3997 - Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007, 110th Congress (2007-2008)
Colloquially known as: Financial Asset Purchase Authority, Establishes the Troubled Asset Relief Program (T.A.R.P.) to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase troubled assets from any financial institution.
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/3997
Archive: https://Archive.ph/AosNo
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-110hr3997eas2.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: https://Clerk.House.gov/Votes/2008674
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_HOUSE_HR3997-110th.pdf
Archive: https://archive.ph/9gCQE
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220512222123/https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2008674
XML format LINK ROLL CALL VOTE: https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_XML_HOUSE_HR3997-110th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.vn/mSXQp
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220504134406/https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml
[12] Bill which is not become Public Law as of the date of publication:
H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education. 117th Congress (2021-2022)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/899/text
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-117hr899ih.pdf
Editor's Note: Related to S.323 (117TH), and almost identical, but not quite: termination date is different.
ROLL CALL VOTE: none.
ROLL CALL VOTE: No roll call vote listed in bill summary. What about sponsors, etc.?
Sponsor: Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4] (Introduced 02/05/2021)
Cosponsors: 19 Republican {{Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC-3], Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5], Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21], Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA-10], Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2], Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3], Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1], Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4], Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL-8], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17], Rep. Good, Bob [R-VA-5], Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9],
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5], Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13]}}
Archive (bill): https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220127233814/https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/899/ Or: https://Archive.ph/T5rqL
Archive (text): https://Web.Archive.org/web/20210209232158/https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/899/text Or: https://Archive.ph/yCK4b
Would do the following: “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2022.”
[13] Bill which is not become Public Law as of the date of publication:
S.323 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education. 117th Congress (2021-2022)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/323/text
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-117s323is.pdf
Editor's Note: Related to H.R.899 (117TH), and almost identical, but not quite: termination date is different.
ROLL CALL VOTE: none.
ROLL CALL VOTE: No roll call vote listed in bill summary. What about sponsors, etc.?
Sponsor: Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] (Introduced 02/12/2021)
Cosponsors: none as yet.
Archive (bill): https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220510083531/https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/323/ Or: https://Archive.ph/aBMk8
Archive (text): https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211029214605/https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/323/text Or: https://Archive.ph/O85Yy
Would do the following: “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2021.”
[14] QUOTE: On page 71 of the 2020 Democratic Party Platform[14], we see they clearly say that: “Democrats will also empower the CFPB to take action against exploitative lenders and will work with Congress to allow student debt to be discharged during bankruptcy.” (p.72, par.1, sentence 2) [Editor's Note: This is page 72 of 92 of “PDF” page numbers, but the writer labels this as page “71,” since there's a title page that offsets numbering by one.] Source: “2020 Democratic Party Platform,” used under Fair Use for commentary, criticism, and research. Editor's Note: This author could not find a more current version, that this 2020 version.
LINK: https://Democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf
Archive-3: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf
See also: https://Democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/providing-a-world-class-education-in-every-zip-code/ (par.28, sentence 2, near the bottom of the page)
Archive: https://Archive.ph/gsGh5 (par.28, sentence 2, near the bottom of the page)
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220509230733/https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/providing-a-world-class-education-in-every-zip-code/ (par.28, sentence 2, near the bottom of the page)
See also: https://www.Presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2020-democratic-party-platform (See e.g., 2ND sentence of the 4TH paragraph under the “Providing Borrowers Relief from Crushing Student Debt” header, near the bottom of this very long HTML webpage)
Archive: https://Archive.ph/xhKgO (See e.g., 2ND sentence of the 4TH paragraph under the “Providing Borrowers Relief from Crushing Student Debt” header, near the bottom of this very long HTML webpage)
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220116130602/https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2020-democratic-party-platform (See e.g., 2ND sentence of the 4TH paragraph under the “Providing Borrowers Relief from Crushing Student Debt” header, near the bottom of this very long HTML webpage)
[15] President Joseph R. “Joe” Biden (D-U.S.A.) – Incumbent President, Democrat: QUOTE: “Biden is adopting Senator Warren’s comprehensive proposal, Fixing Our Bankruptcy System to Give People a Second Chance. In 2005, Biden worked hard to add progressive reforms to a bankruptcy bill that was going to be passed with or without him. Today, he agrees firmly with Senator Warren that we need to fundamentally reshape our bankruptcy system. [] As described by Senator Warren in her plan, this plan will: … End the absurd rules that make it nearly impossible to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy.” SOURCE: “THE BIDEN PLAN FOR BANKRUPTCY REFORM,” by Joseph R. “Joe” Biden, JoeBiden.com (Official Campaign page), © Copyright 2021. All rights reserved – small “Fair Use” quote used for commentary, criticism, research, LINK: https://JoeBiden.com/bankruptcyreform/
Archive-1: https://Archive.vn/GOqEy
Archive-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211022193806/https://joebiden.com/bankruptcyreform/
[16] Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-CA) – Incumbent Vice President, Democrat – “Original cosponsor” of S.1414 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020) (Introduced 05/09/2019)
LINK: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1414/cosponsors
Archive-1: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211204112346/https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1414/cosponsors Archive-2: https://Archive.ph/PZ7w6
[17] Sen. Richard J. “Dick” Durbin (D-IL) is a long-time and well-known lawmaker, currently serves as the Democratic Whip, the second highest ranking position among the Senate Democrats https://www.Durbin.senate.gov/about-dick-durbin and sits on the Senate Judiciary, Appropriations, Agriculture, and Rules Committees, and is the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and the Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee. ** Sen. Durbin is also the “Primary Sponsor” of S.1414 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020) (Introduced 05/09/2019) https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1414/cosponsors the “Primary Sponsor” of S.2598 - FRESH START Through Bankruptcy Act, 117th Congress (2021-2022) (Introduced 08/04/2021) https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2598/cosponsors
SENATOR DICK DURBIN (D-IL) quote from the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on S.2598: “Thank you, Senator Cornyn. I think that the question of accountability – as you and I have discussed before – is really part of this, an integral part of this.” (19:07—19:14 in local video, below, and 33:22—33:29 in official Senate website video.)
SENATE LINK: https://www.Judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/student-loan-bankruptcy-reform
YouTube: https://YouTu.be/0___nZTj98k
Facebook: https://www.Facebook.com/GordonWayneWatts/videos/585970785734005
Download: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/FannyDeregulation/SenateJudiciaryHearing_Tue-08Aug2021_MOV.mov
[18] Rep. Jerrold “Jerry” Lewis Nadler (D-NY-10th) is a well-known Democrat lawmaker who represents New York’s 10th Congressional District, one of the most dynamic and diverse districts in the country. The district includes Manhattan’s Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, Hell’s Kitchen, Chelsea, Greenwich Village, Soho, Wall Street, and Battery Park City, as well as the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Borough Park, Kensington, and parts of Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights, Red Hook, Sunset Park, and Midwood. He is currently Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee: https://Nadler.House.gov/about-jerry
** Chairman Nadler is also the “Primary Sponsor” of H.R.2648 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020) (Introduced 05/09/2019) https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2648/cosponsors
[19] Sen. Benard “Bernie” Sanders (I-VT) is a well-known, Liberal lawmaker and 2-time candidate for president, but he is also registered as an “Independent,” and does not always align with the Democratic Party (which means his support for the bankruptcy bill cited above changes the support from “bipartisan” to “tripartisan,” an important distinction).
** Sen. Sanders also an “Original cosponsor” of S.1414 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020) (Introduced 05/09/2019) (Date Cosponsored: 05/09/2019) https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1414/cosponsors
[20] Legendary bankruptcy professor, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) – “Original cosponsor” of S.1414 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020) (Introduced 05/09/2019)
LINK: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1414/cosponsors
Archive-1: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211204112346/https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1414/cosponsors Archive-2: https://Archive.ph/PZ7w6
See also: QUOTE: “End the absurd rules that make it nearly impossible to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy,” Source: “Fixing Our Bankruptcy System to Give People a Second Chance,”
LINK: https://ElizabethWarren.com/plans/bankruptcy-reform Archive-1: https://Archive.ph/QZGoM
Archive-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220511203216/https://ElizabethWarren.com/plans/bankruptcy-reform
[21] Former Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO-01st) who was Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development & Insurance, and an accomplished and experienced lawmaker, who was serving his 10th term, when Rep. Cori Bush beat him in a surprise upset in the Democratic Primary. Clay was first elected to the U. S. House in 2000 after serving 17-years in both chambers of the Missouri State legislature:
https://Web.Archive.org/web/20201101063027/https://LacyClay.House.gov/about/full-biography ** Rep. Clay is also the “Primary Sponsor” of H.R.4750 - RED Act (also known as “Relief from Excessive Debt Act,” or, Official Title as Introduced: “To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make student loans dischargeable.”)116th Congress (2019-2020) (Introduced 10/18/2019) https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4750/cosponsors
[22] QUOTE: “Private student loans were largely stripped of bankruptcy protections in 2005 in a congressional move that had the devastating impact of tripling such debt over a decade and locking in millions of Americans to years of grueling repayments. [] The Republican-led bill tightened the bankruptcy code, unleashing a huge giveaway to lenders at the expense of indebted student borrowers. At the time it faced vociferous opposition from 25 Democrats in the US Senate. [] But it passed anyway, with 18 Democratic senators breaking ranks and casting their vote in favor of the bill. Of those 18, one politician stood out as an especially enthusiastic champion of the credit companies who, as it happens, had given him hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions – Joe Biden.” Source: “How Biden helped create the student debt problem he now promises to fix,” by Ed Pilkington (in New York, @edpilkington), The Guardian, Monday, 02 December 2019, 04:00 (EST),
LINK: https://www.TheGuardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/02/joe-biden-student-loan-debt-2005-act-2020
Archive-1: https://Archive.ph/xixQe
See also: “Biden made it harder for student-loan borrowers to get rid of debt when they go bankrupt,” by Ayelet Sheffey, BUSINESS INSIDER, May 08, 2022,
Archive-1: https://web.archive.org/web/20220509154448/https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-made-it-harder-to-discharge-student-debt-through-bankruptcy-2022-5 Archive-2: https://Archive.ph/q7uZp
See also: “Joe Biden’s Role in Creating the Student Debt Crisis Stretches Back to the 1970s: As a senator, Joe Biden supported several bills that contributed to the rise in borrowing from $1.8 billion in 1977 to $12 billion in 1989.,” by Aída Chávez, The Intercept, January 07, 2020, 3:04 p.m.,
LINK: https://TheIntercept.com/2020/01/07/joe-biden-student-loans/ Archive-1: https://Archive.ph/UhTb7
See also: “Joe Biden Backed Bills to Make It Harder for Americans to Reduce their Student Debt,” by CBA (© 2021 CONSUMER BANKERS ASSOCIATION), September 15, 2015,
Archive-1: https://Archive.ph/hKSsl
[23] QUOTE: “[Sen. Elizabeth] Warren, who is not a sponsor of that bill [S.2598], declined to comment on whether she would support it, saying she is committed to cancellation as the way to relieve borrowers of the country’s collective $1.7 trillion in student debt. [] “I am not going to negotiate against myself,” Warren said. “We need the president to cancel $50,000 in student loan debt.”” Source: “Biden gives reprieve for student loans, but borrowers want permanent relief,” by Haley Fuller, Globe Correspondent, BOSTON GLOBE, Updated January 28, 2022,
LINK: https://www.BostonGlobe.com/2022/01/28/nation/biden-gives-reprieve-student-loans-borrowers-want-permanent-relief/ ARCHIVES: https://Archive.ph/zuzKt
AND: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BostonGlobe-on-LizWarren_1-28-2022_viaArchiveToday.pdf
Official RESPONSE from this undersigned writer: Sen. Liz Warren's (D-MA) refusal to get behind Sen. Durbin's student loan bk bill, S.2598, “negotiates against” herself insofar as it leaves borrowers defenseless as evidenced by the 99% PSLF failure rate and other mistreatments. (Why else would PSLF reject/deny 99% of applicants? The lack of bankruptcy self-defense is the only plausible answer: Credit Card lenders treat borrowers with respect and “work with” them; student loan lenders and the Dept of Ed don't.) Further, bankruptcy defense would offer permanent relief for past, present, and future borrowers and be moderate and politically viable, unlike “cancellation,” which faces much opposition. Furthermore, if “forgiveness” is attempted first (whether successful or not, and whether by Exec Order or legislatively), the “push-back” will render all attempts at meaningful long-term relief impossible: If you think S.2598 and H.R.4907 are hard to pass now, just try to cancel student debt. However, if S.2598 passes first, it will give “negotiating power” to the borrower and make further changes tenable and realistic: Indeed, even far-right Conservatives like me acknowledge illegal price-gouging and other constitutional deprivations on student borrowers, such as lack of adherence to the U.S. Constitution's Uniformity clause, Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4.
Further RESPONSE from this undersigned writer: Sen. Rick Scott's (R-FL) refusal to join Sens. Hawley (R-MO) and Cornyn (R-TX) on S.2598 “negotiates against” himself insofar as his continued failure to enact or even file price-control or subsidy cuts (promised in his 9-10-2019 press release) proves the need for this Free Market force to tamp down excess lending by Dept of Ed, making them reluctant to waste trillions in unneeded loans which we never needed in the past: It's a known fact that lenders (such as the Dept of Ed) are more reluctant to lend out insane trillions of borrowers can assert bankruptcy self-defense, and, by extension, it's obvious that lack of bankruptcy defense allows lobbyists to pressure lawmakers into not filing subsidy cuts. Even Rick Scott, a known conservative, hasn't filed such promised pork spending higher ed loan subsidy cuts? The lack of bankruptcy self-defense is the only plausible answer, as no other answer is tenable: Scott is not a liberal. So, he should join Hawley and Cornyn on restoration of Constitutional bankruptcy defense, and admit Democrats were “more correct” on this issue than the GOP of recent.)
LINK: https://www.RickScott.senate.gov/sen-rick-scott-announces-proposals-lower-cost-higher-education
ARCHIVES: https://Archive.vn/bOr5L
AND: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/FannyDeregulation/SCOTT-PressRelease-Sept-10-2019_PDF.pdf
[24] QUOTE: “The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;.” Source: U.S. CONSTITUTION, Article I, Section 8, clause 4, LINK: https://ConstitutionUS.com
LINK: https://www.Law.Cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8
LINK: https://www.Senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1
LINK: https://www.Archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-8-
LINK: https://www.Britannica.com/topic/Constitution-of-the-United-States-of-America
[25] Bill which did not become Public Law:
H.R.2648 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2648/cosponsors
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-116hr2648ih.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: No roll call vote listed in bill summary. What about sponsors, etc.?
Sponsor: Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] (Introduced 05/09/2019)
Cosponsors: Rep. Katko, John [R-NY-24]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Cicilline, David N. [D-RI-1]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-15]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-19]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Dean, Madeleine [D-PA-4]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46]* 05/09/2019 ; Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16] 05/14/2019 ; Rep. Clyburn, James E. [D-SC-6] 05/14/2019 ; Rep. Haaland, Debra A. [D-NM-1] 05/14/2019 ; Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] 05/14/2019 ; Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] 05/21/2019 ; Rep. Brindisi, Anthony [D-NY-22] 05/22/2019 ; Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7] 06/24/2019 ; Rep. Horn, Kendra S. [D-OK-5] 06/26/2019 ; Rep. Visclosky, Peter J. [D-IN-1] 07/30/2019 ; Rep. Eshoo, Anna G. [D-CA-18] 08/09/2019 ; Rep. Luria, Elaine G. [D-VA-2] 08/16/2019 ; Rep. Trone, David J. [D-MD-6] 09/17/2019 ; Rep. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM-3] 10/22/2019 ; Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6] 10/22/2019 ; Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8] 09/15/2020 ; Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33] 09/15/2020
Would have done the following: (a) Exception To Discharge.—Section 523 of title 11, United States Code, is amended in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (8). (b) Conforming Amendment.—Section 1328(a)(2) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by striking “(8),”. [In plain English, make student loans be treated like all other debt, such as even unsecured credit card debt.]
[26] Bill which did not become Public Law:
S.1414 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1414/cosponsors
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-116s1414is.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: No roll call vote listed in bill summary. What about sponsors, etc.?
Sponsor: Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] (Introduced 05/09/2019)
Cosponsors: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Brown, Sherrod [D-OH]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Harris, Kamala D. [D-CA]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]* 05/09/2019 ;
Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]* 05/09/2019 ; Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL] 05/20/2019 ; Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV] 06/05/2019 ; Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV] 06/18/2019 ; Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] 06/28/2019 ; Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY] 10/23/2019
Would have done the following: (a) Exception To Discharge.—Section 523 of title 11, United States Code, is amended in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (8). (b) Conforming Amendment.—Section 1328(a)(2) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by striking “(8),”. [In plain English, make student loans be treated like all other debt, such as even unsecured credit card debt.]
[27] Bill which is not become Public Law as of the date of publication:
H.R.4907 - Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2019, 117th Congress (2021-2022)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4907/cosponsors
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-117hr4907ih.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: No roll call vote listed in bill summary. What about sponsors, etc.?
Sponsor: Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] (Introduced 08/03/2021)
Cosponsors: Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7]* 08/03/2021 ; Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-15]* 08/03/2021
Would do the following: This bill modifies the treatment of certain student loans in bankruptcy. Specifically it allows private education loans to be discharged in bankruptcy regardless of whether a debtor demonstrates undue hardship. Under current law, student loans may be discharged in bankruptcy only if the loans impose an undue hardship on the debtor.
[28] Bill which is not become Public Law as of the date of publication:
S.2598 - FRESH START Through Bankruptcy Act, 117th Congress (2021-2022)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2598/cosponsors
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-117s2598is.pdf
ROLL CALL VOTE: No roll call vote listed in bill summary. What about sponsors, etc.?
Sponsor: Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] (Introduced 08/04/2021)
Cosponsors: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]* 08/04/2021 ; Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO] 09/15/2021
Would do the following: This bill revises the treatment of student loans in bankruptcy. The bill makes federal student loan debt dischargeable in a bankruptcy proceeding ten years after the first loan payment is due, in addition to being dischargeable at any time in cases of undue hardship, as under current law. Further, institutions of higher education that have at least one-third of their students receiving federal student loans must partially repay a student loan to the Department of Education if that loan is later discharged in bankruptcy. The amount the institution must repay is dependent on the institution's average rates of student loan default and repayment.
[29] QUOTE: “As of July 8, 2016, the federal government owned approximately $1 trillion in outstanding consumer debt, per data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. That figure was up from less than $150 billion in January 2009, representing a nearly 600% increase over that time span. The main culprit is student loans, which the federal government effectively monopolized in a little-known provision of the Affordable Care Act, signed into law in 2010. [] Prior to the Affordable Care Act, a majority of student loans originated with a private lender but were guaranteed by the government, meaning taxpayers foot the bill if student borrowers default.” Source: “Who Actually Owns Student Loan Debt?,” by Sean Ross, INVESTOPEDIA, Updated April 10, 2020,
Archive-1: https://Archive.vn/IyDym
Archive-3: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/FannyDeregulation/INVESTOPEDIA_WhoActuallyOwnsStudentLoanDebt.pdf
[30] PL 111-148:
PUBLIC LAW 111-148—MAR. 23, 2010
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 111th Congress (2009-2010)
Also known as “ACA” or “ObamaCare”
H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 111th Congress (2009-2010)
BILL: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590
PDF: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
Vote Number: 396 Vote Date: December 24, 2009, 07:05 AM
Roll Call Vote 111th Congress - 1st Session XML Vote Summary
Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3590 as Amended )
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
Vote Counts: YEAs 60 ; NAYs 39 ; Not Voting 1
Senate roll call vote: https://www.Senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1111/vote_111_1_00396.htm
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_SENATE_HR3590-111th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/yDHqr
MAR 21, 2010, 10:49 PM | 111TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION
Vote Question: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Vote Type: Recorded Vote, Status: Passed
House roll call vote: https://Clerk.House.gov/Votes/2010165
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_HOUSE_HR3590-111th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/GwTLo
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20211122160932/https://Clerk.House.gov/Votes/2010165
XML format LINK: https://Clerk.House.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
Archive: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/RollCallVote_XML_HOUSE_HR3590-111th.pdf
Archive: https://Archive.ph/HzyL5
Archive: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220328020835/https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml
[31] Higher Ed Funding “Investigative Reporting”: What percentage of lawmakers in each political party obey their own party's platform in key higher ed funding legislation?
METRICS:
** Republican Lawmakers: First, let's look at the GOP: On page 35 of the Republican Party Platform[[1]], we see the GOP clearly says: “The federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans.”
** Democrat Lawmakers: Next, let's look at the Democrats' official platform: On page 71 of the 2020 Democratic Party Platform[[2]], we see they clearly say that: “Democrats will also empower the CFPB to take action against exploitative lenders and will work with Congress to allow student debt to be discharged during bankruptcy.”
Questions asked: What percentage of GOP lawmakers have attempted to reduce or halt use of Federal tax dollars to originate (make) student loans; and, what percentage of DEMOCRAT lawmakers have attempted to restore bankruptcy to student loans (like it was back when the system worked)?
Answers found: First, as far as this undersigned writer knows, absolutely zero GOP lawmakers, in any recent session of Congress, have filed any legislation to lower or eliminate originating (making) collegiate loans with Federal Taxpayer dollars (unless you count S.323 and H.R.899, which would eliminate the Dept of Ed, but this bill has no realistic chance of passing, and will be addressed later.)
* S.323 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education. 117th Congress, 1 GOP Sponsor; Zero cosponsors: 1
* H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education. 117th Congress, 1 GOP Sponsor; 19 GOP cosponsors: 20
* S.4979 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education. 116th Congress, 1 GOP Sponsor; Zero cosponsors: 1
* H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education. 116th Congress, 1 GOP Sponsor; 12 GOP cosponsors: 13
* H.R.899 - To terminate the Department of Education. 115th Congress, 1 GOP Sponsor; 12 GOP cosponsors: 13
* H.R.620 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education. 99th Congress, 1 GOP Sponsor; 8 GOP cosponsors: 9
* H.R.714 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education. 98th Congress, 1 GOP Sponsor; 4 GOP cosponsors: 5
* H.R.2289 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education. 97th Congress, 1 GOP Sponsor; Zero cosponsors: 1
* H.R.1779 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education. 97th
Congress, 1 GOP Sponsor; 19 GOP cosponsors, 2 Democrat cosponsors, 20 GOP total, 2 Democrat total, 22 sum total
Next, there have been a few student loan bankruptcy bills in recent sessions, and these data will be analyzed for compliance of party platform by Democrat lawmakers.
* S.2598 - FRESH START Through Bankruptcy Act 117th Congress, 1 DEM sponsor, 2 GOP cosponsors, 3 total (bipartisan)
* H.R.4907 - Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2019, 117th Congress, 1 DEM sponsor, 2 DEM cosponsors, 3 “DEM” total
* H.R.885 - Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2019, 116th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 4 DEM cosponsors: 15
* S.1414 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 20 DEM cosponsors, 1 Independent cosponsor (who caucuses with DEMS), 22 “DEM” total
* H.R.2648 - Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019, 116th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 28 DEM cosponsors, 1 GOP cosponsor, 29 “DEM” total, 30 sum total
* H.R.137 - Stopping Abusive Student Loan Collection Practices in Bankruptcy Act of 2017, 115th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 3 DEM cosponsors: 4
* H.R.2366 - Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act of 2017, 115th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 37 DEM cosponsors, 1 GOP cosponsor, 38 “DEM” total, 39 sum total
* H.R.2527 - Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2017, 115th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 23 DEM cosponsors: 24
* H.R.6588 - Student Loan Bankruptcy Act of 2018, 115th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 1 DEM cosponsor: 2
* H.R.100 - Stopping Abusive Student Loan Collection Practices in Bankruptcy Act of 2015, 114th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 2 DEM cosponsors: 3
* H.R.449 - Discharge Student Loans in Bankruptcy Act of 2015, 114th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 15 DEM cosponsors, 2 GOP cosponsors, 16 “DEM” total, 18 sum total
* H.R.1674 - Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2015, 114th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; 41 DEM cosponsors: 42
* H.R.3451 - Student Loan Bankruptcy Parity Act of 2015, 114th Congress, 1 DEM Sponsor; Zero cosponsors: 1
RESULTS:
Basic raw data: For the 117TH CONGRESS, The U.S. House of Representatives has 208 Republicans, 220 Democrats, zero (0) other (such as independents or 3RD party), and 7 vacancies (due to death or resignation), for a total of 435 seats; the U.S. Senate has 48 Democrats, 50 Republicans, and 2 Independents (who caucus with the Democrats), for a total of 100 seats: See below for discussion.
HOUSE: https://PressGallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown
SENATE: https://www.Senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm
Basic raw data: For the 116TH CONGRESS, The U.S. House of Representatives had 197 Republicans, 235 Democrats, zero (0) other (such as independents or 3RD party), and 3 vacancies (due to death or resignation or, in 1 case, lack of legal certification of the race), for a total of 435 seats; the U.S. Senate has 45 Democrats, 53 Republicans, and 2 Independents (who caucus with the Democrats), for a total of 100 seats: See below for discussion.
SENATE: https://www.Senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm
REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM COMPLIANCE: Even being “very generous” with GOP lawmakers (and taking H.R.899 seriously, tho it has no realistic chances of passing and is more of “making a statement” legislation, not unlike GOP lawmakers hollow promises to repeal the ACA, but failing to do so when taking power), nonetheless, even in the “best” recent session, the 117TH Congress (2021-2022), there were only twenty (20) GOP Members of Congress and one (1) GOP Senator to sponsor/cosponsor such legislation, for a total of twenty-one (21) GOP lawmakers out of a total of 535 total lawmakers (100 senators and 435 members of congress), for a raw “compliance percentage” of 21/535, or 3.93% to 3 significant figures. Even when we do a “sum-weighted” average correction (taking into account that not all lawmakers are GOP), and that the 117TH Congress only has 208 Members of Congress and 50 U.S. Senators who are Republican, we still have only 21/258, or a generous 8.14% compliance rate by GOP lawmakers for a metric on their compliance with their own Republican Party Platform on this key issue. True GOP compliance, in reality, is zero (0.00%) percent, since no realistic legislation to either lower or eliminate Federal tax dollar origination (making of) student loans. (But elimination of the DOE would, technically, do this, plus eliminate a lot of other regulatory functions as well. Theoretically.) A similar effort was made in the 97TH Congress, 1981-1982, when H.R.1779 - A bill to terminate the Department of Education, was filed, and garnered 22 total sponsors/cosponsors, but only twenty (20) of whom were GOP lawmakers; the other 2 were Democrat members of Congress. We aren't counting this as it garnered less support and was a long time ago, especially considering it had no chance of passing.
DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM COMPLIANCE: Even being “very generous” with Democrat lawmakers, and looking at the most successful effort in recent congressional sessions, probably the most successful (albeit failed) attempt by Democrats to obey their party platform on STUDENT LOAN BANKRUPTCY RESTORATION, was S.1414, which had a companion bill, H.R.2648, so let's look at these bills: S.1414 had 1 DEM Sponsor, 20 DEM cosponsors, 1 Independent cosponsor (who caucuses with DEMS), and this constitutes 22 “DEM” senators, total. Its companion bill (identical language needed to pass into law) was H.R.2648, which ad 1 DEM Sponsor; 28 DEM cosponsors, 1 GOP cosponsor, and thus 29 “DEM” members of congress, total. So, Democrats had fifty-one (51) lawmakers in support of that bill, for a raw “compliance percentage” of 51/535, or 9.53% to 3 significant figures. Even when we do a “sum-weighted” average correction (taking into account that not all lawmakers are DEM), and that the 116TH Congress only had 235 Members of Congress and 47 U.S. Senators who were (or caucus as) Democrat, we still have only 51/282, or a generous 18.1% compliance rate by DEMOCRAT lawmakers for a metric on their compliance with their own Democratic Party Platform on this key issue.
SUMMARY: So, the summary of this investigation is that practically ZERO Republican lawmakers (or maybe 8.14%, when being very generous with the definition of compliance) actually even **attempt** to obey our party's platform (“our,” yes, I'm a far-right Conservative Republican, but I'm honest/unbiased in news-reporting, and call it like I see it) prohibiting federal tax dollars originating (making) student loans. By contrast, roughly 18.1% of all Democrat lawmakers actually even **attempt** to obey their party's platform calling for the restoration of student loan bankruptcy self-defense.
COMMENTS: First, this is quite sad. Secondly, I note with wry irony that the Democrat plank supporting bankruptcy is a manifestation of “Conservative” Free Market forces of bankruptcy to make the Dept of Ed reluctant to lend irresponsibly, as well as comport with Constitutionally-protected bankruptcy uniformity (See Art.I, Sec.8, cl.4). By contrast, our GOP platform's call to prohibit Fed Govt student loan originations is a manifestation of “Liberal” Big Government regulation. However, both planks are morally sound, constitutional, financially responsible, and seem politically viable in some circumstances.
SOURCES:
[[1]] QUOTE: On page 35 of the Republican Party Platform[1], we see the GOP clearly says: “The federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans.” (1ST sentence of last paragraph, near bottom-right of page) [Editor's Note: This is page 42 of 66 of “PDF” page numbers, but the writer labels this as page “35,” since the first 7 pages weren't given regular page numbers.] Source: “REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2016,” used under Fair Use for commentary, criticism, and research. Editor's Note: This author could not find a more current version, such as 2020 or more recent.
LINK: https://Prod-Cdn-Static.GOP.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf
Archive-2: https://GordonWatts.com/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
Archive-3: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
[[2]] QUOTE: On page 71 of the 2020 Democratic Party Platform[14], we see they clearly say that: “Democrats will also empower the CFPB to take action against exploitative lenders and will work with Congress to allow student debt to be discharged during bankruptcy.” (p.72, par.1, sentence 2) [Editor's Note: This is page 72 of 92 of “PDF” page numbers, but the writer labels this as page “71,” since there's a title page that offsets numbering by one.] Source: “2020 Democratic Party Platform,” used under Fair Use for commentary, criticism, and research. Editor's Note: This author could not find a more current version, that this 2020 version.
LINK: https://Democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf
Archive-3: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf