targeting debt relief those who need it most and affected most by the pandemic. look, look, this is $400 billion. this is why those republican senators wrote in an amicus brief to the court, other americans will have to pick up the tab to the tune of $2,500 per taxpayer. and you know the other argument in this case because there s two arguments made before the court, is that you are picking and choosing. that you re picking those with federal student loans and not those that are have private loans. how do you respond to that argument that folks say where is our relief? right. we can control our loans. we can t control other loans. i think it s very hypocritical for some who are making an argument that we shouldn t do this because some of them have received debt relief themselves. i know one representative has received over $1 million in debt relief last year or the year before and is now arguing against $10,000 of debt relief
arguments on the legality of president biden s student loan debt relief program. six republican-led states and two texae the administration does not have the authority to cancel the school loan debt of about 40 million americans. but the biden administration says congress gave the secretary of education expansive authority to alleviate hardship for student borrowers during a national emergency, like the pandemic. on the eve of the arguments, advocates already outside the court for a case that could change the trajectory of their lives. my first student loan bill it was about $350 of a payment. and i hadn t secured a job at that point, and so for me, it felt really unpossible. reporter: she graduated from college in 2019. she has nearly $30,000 in student loan debt. when the pandemic hit, repayments were paused. she could now contribute to household costs for the home she shares with her parents. when the biden administration
that you, as the education secretary, have the power to waive or modify a federal student loan program to make sure people are not placed in a worst position financially quote because a war or other military operation or national emergency. what is the national emergency you are predicating this on? once in 100-year pandemic that shut down our country for some time and, to me, that s a national emergency. i can t recall any other time as an educator where we had the impact in our schools, our businesses. look, let s face it, the government has helped corporations in the past. we provided funding for small businesses to help them get back on their feet after this pandemic. why is it that people are fighting it when we re helping blue collar americans, veterans like the one you saw, get back on their feet? i don t disagree with you that main street always deserves the most relief. but this is a legal argument and you have to prevail on the law.
on it. each day our nation s adversaries are innovating and preparing every day to defeat us. they re closing the gap on technology, especially. we need to provide a strong investment into our military. every day, right now the committee is work on our ndaa, our nation s investment in our nation s military. that intends to be a robust investment to deter adversaries like china, like iran, to ensure that we protect americans abroad and at home. speaking of technologies, the u.s. black listed today 12 chinese entities for providing dual use technology for russia. that obviously lays into this big question of whether or not china will indeed provide russia with lethal aid despite the aid they have already been providing russia. what should the u.s. response be if that does in fact happen? we wanted to defer conflict, first and foremost. there is a number of ways to do that. economically is one way.
most of their arguments were around whether or not something like this needed congressional authorization. as chief justice john roberts said, has to do with a half trillion dollars, millions of americans, he really suggested that. they also had concerns with, look, maybe in a time of emergency this was executive overreach, but also they had another point, and they just really talked about basic fairness, what about people who paid their loans? what about people who didn t get loans because they knew they couldn t pay for them? listen to conservative justice neil gorsuch on that particular point. when i think they argue that is missing is cost to other persons in terms of fairness, for example. people who paid their loans, people who don t have plan their lives around not seeking loans and people who are not eligible for loans in the first place and that half a trillion dollars is being diverted to one group of favored persons over others. but there was one other big