[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H216-H223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1230, PROTECTING OLDER WORKERS 
 AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 
   76, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF RULE SUBMITTED BY 
 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RELATING TO ``BORROWER DEFENSE INSTITUTIONAL 
ACCOUNTABILITY''; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM 
               JANUARY 17, 2020, THROUGH JANUARY 24, 2020

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 790 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 790

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1230) to amend the Age Discrimination in 
     Employment Act of 1967 and other laws to clarify appropriate 
     standards for Federal employment discrimination and 
     retaliation claims, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-46 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such further amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 76) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Department of Education relating to 
     ``Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability''. All points 
     of order against consideration of the joint resolution are 
     waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the joint resolution 
     are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Labor; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     January 17, 2020, through January 24, 2020--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XV.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 790, providing for consideration of 
two measures: H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against 
Discrimination Act, and H.J. Res. 76, providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Borrower Defense 
Institutional Accountability.''
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1230 under a structured 
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor. It makes in 
order five amendments and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 76 under a closed 
rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor, and it 
provides one motion to recommit.
  Finally, the rule provides for standard district work period 
instructions from January 17 through January 24, 2020.
  Mr. Speaker, since taking the majority a year ago, Democrats have 
made it a priority to protect our Nation's students and workers. As a 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor, I am proud that I have 
played a role in passing legislation that will provide students and 
workers the support they need to thrive. We have that opportunity once 
again this week with these bills, both of which I am proud to 
cosponsor.
  First, we are taking a stand against the Department of Education's 
deliberate disregard for students who have been defrauded by 
institutions. In 2019, student loan debt reached an all-time high in 
the United States of $1.41 trillion. Our Nation is truly in a student 
debt crisis.
  Even more significantly impacted by this crisis are students who have 
been defrauded by predatory for-profit colleges. On top of their 
crushing debt, they have useless degrees and none of

[[Page H217]]

the job opportunities that they were promised.
  In 2016, following the collapse of two major predatory for-profit 
institutions, President Obama established the borrower defense rule to 
help students access relief from their student loans. Instead of 
helping students, Secretary DeVos modified the rule, creating an 
intentionally complicated process that restricts how much relief 
defrauded students can receive.
  According to The Institute for College Access and Success, the new 
rule would forgive only about 3 cents on every dollar borrowed. Even in 
cases where schools clearly violate the law, this new rule denies 
students relief if they can't prove the school intentionally defrauded 
them, can't file their claim fast enough, or can't document exactly how 
much financial harm they have suffered due to fraud.
  Although we don't have the full picture because their investments are 
shrouded in secrecy, Secretary DeVos' connections to the for-profit 
college industry led me to believe that her siding with the industry is 
not a coincidence.
  The bill we will consider this week would bring us back to the Obama-
era rules that put students first and profit second.
  Second, we will bring to the floor the Protecting Older Workers 
Against Discrimination Act. One in four adults age 65 and older are 
part of the workforce, and that number is still growing. While some of 
the reasons behind this shift in the labor force are positive, like 
better health and job satisfaction, many older Americans must keep 
working because they are not financially prepared for retirement.
  Sadly, aging American adults have a median savings of just over 
$150,000 for retirement. If a person is fortunate enough to live a 
long, healthy life and has 30 years of retirement, that would leave 
them with just $5,000 a year, a sum no one could retire on anywhere in 
this country.
  Unfortunately, older workers suffer disproportionately from long-term 
unemployment and age discrimination in the workforce. Six out of 10 
older workers have experienced age discrimination, but a 2009 Supreme 
Court ruling has made it harder for them to prove it. The decision 
upended decades of precedent, making it more difficult for older 
workers to get justice through the courts.
  This legislation restores workplace protections for older Americans, 
paving the way for a more inclusive and diverse workforce.
  Taken together, these bills honor our commitment to students and 
workers and offer us the opportunity to reverse two misguided and 
harmful policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
DeSaulnier) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of two measures, 
a bill that seeks to protect older Americans from discrimination in the 
workplace and a Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn a 
Department of Education rule on borrower defense to repayment. While 
both pieces of legislation appear to protect vulnerable Americans, they 
likely have no chance of becoming law.
  First, H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination 
Act, adds a section to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that 
shifts the burden of proof in age discrimination cases to allow a 
plaintiff to show that any practice by the employer for which age may 
be an involved factor, not the sole factor, is covered by the act.

                              {time}  1230

  This changes congressional intent and disregards case law.
  In 1967, Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to 
protect applicants and employees over 40 years of age from 
discrimination on the basis of age in employment matters. It is 
enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  In 2009, the Supreme Court held that, in the case of Gross v. FBL 
Financial Services, Inc., the standard of proof for a claim under the 
Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires that age stand alone as 
the cause of the adverse employment action rather than in conjunction 
with other factors.
  In 2013, the Supreme Court also ruled in the University of Texas 
Southwestern Medical Center v. Dr. Naiel Nassar that the plaintiff must 
prove that a retaliatory motive was the decisive cause of adverse 
employment action.
  H.R. 1230 would reverse these Supreme Court decisions by allowing 
mixed-motive claims in Age Discrimination in Employment Act cases, 
clarifying that age need only be a motivating factor for 
discrimination, even though other factors also motivated the action 
unfavorable to the employee. This would actually make it more difficult 
to prove discrimination because an employer would simply have to show 
that they would have taken the same action in the absence of age as a 
motivating factor, which will be more easy to show under the mixed-
motive legal framework.
  Congress previously rejected amendments to add age discrimination to 
the Civil Rights Act, resulting in the passage of the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act using a different legal procedure. 
Lowering the standard would apply the legal procedure of the Civil 
Rights Act to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In addition, a 
lower standard is likely to lead to increased litigation that, in fact, 
only benefits the plaintiffs' bar.
  Other provisions of H.R. 1230 prohibit a court from awarding damages 
or requiring any employment activity other than injunctive relief. This 
means that discriminated parties are precluded from actually receiving 
monetary relief, and the only true beneficiaries of this law will be 
trial lawyers.
  The Supreme Court stated in the Nassar case that ``lessening the 
causation standard could . . . contribute to the filing of frivolous 
claims, which would siphon resources from efforts by employers, 
administrative agencies, and courts to combat workplace harassment.''
  Republicans are committed to eliminating discrimination in the 
workplace, including for older Americans. Discrimination of any kind is 
already against the law.
  Let me rephrase that. Discrimination of any kind is already against 
the law through the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights 
Act.
  Now, the second measure included in this rule is the Congressional 
Review Act resolution to overturn a 2019 Department of Education rule 
called Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability.
  In 1994, the Department of Education issued the Borrower Defense to 
Repayment regulation. In 2015, the Department of Education began 
considering borrower defense claims prior to default or collection 
proceedings, prompting a significant increase in applications for loan 
relief.
  On November 1, 2016, the Department of Education published a Borrower 
Defense to Repayment regulation that did not distinguish between 
intentional fraud and a simple mistake by an institution of higher 
education. These regulations went after institutions rather than 
working to help students. Offending institutions suffered significant 
financial penalties, resulting in a taxpayer cost of $42 billion and 
the loss of access to higher education for millions of students.
  These Obama administration regulations were, in fact, overly broad, 
with the intent of loan forgiveness, despite taxpayer cost.
  The Trump administration's Department of Education subsequently 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and reviewed over 30,000 
comments prior to publishing a final rule in September of 2019 to 
revise these 2016 regulations.
  And let me just remind you, these 2016 regulations actually came 
about right at the end of the previous administration. The 2019 
regulations, those that were derived after the 30,000 comments, the 
2019 regulations will apply only to loans disbursed after July 1, 2020. 
So existing loans will remain subject to the 1994 or the 2016 rules, 
depending upon the issue date.
  The new regulations will provide loan relief to those students who 
have been lied to and suffered financial harm. They will also hold 
institutions accountable, grant due process to all parties, allow for 
the use of arbitration, and expand the closed school look-back period 
from 120 to 180 days.

[[Page H218]]

  If this rule is not allowed to take effect, the 2016 regulations will 
remain. The definition of misrepresentation under the 2016 regulation 
is so broad that nearly everyone will eventually receive loan 
forgiveness, so this may, in fact, have the effect of making college 
free.
  Now, free college sounds like a great benefit to society, but it is 
not practical, and it would force those who can't or won't go to 
college to pay for those who do.
  In addition, eliminating the cost to higher education will limit the 
competitiveness of institutions, reducing the superiority of American 
colleges and universities.
  Now, we heard last night in the Rules Committee that this 
Congressional Review Act is important to combat for-profit colleges, 
but the rules apply to all institutions. This means that even those 
institutions that inadvertently make a mistake, such as not updating a 
graduation rate on a flyer, will suffer financial penalties and, in 
fact, may have to close, despite no intentional wrongdoing.
  The 2019 borrower defense rule is a significant improvement over the 
2016 regulations and will save the taxpayer money, ensure due process, 
and hold fraudulent higher education institutions accountable.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to thank Congresswoman Susie Lee and Chairman  Bobby Scott for 
their leadership on advocating for America's students.
  In the economy that we are in today, some kind of postsecondary 
training, whether it is an associate's degree, an apprenticeship 
program, or a 4-year program, is necessary in order to get the skills 
that are required in order to support a family and earn a decent 
living, and that is what education should be about in this country.
  Sadly, in order to get that education, too many young people and 
people transitioning into their next job are taking on mountains of 
debt. Student debt is now $1.3 trillion, more than credit card debt in 
this country.
  As a result, these students, these graduates, often, or some who drop 
out are holding back from making other necessary investments to support 
their families, holding back on buying a home, and holding back on 
starting families and putting away money for their retirement because 
they are so saddled with debt.
  One of the contributors to this huge increase in student debt has 
been the effect of predatory for-profit colleges. They have exploited 
potential students with false promises of high-paying jobs; and, 
particularly shameful, they have recruited the most vulnerable low-
income individuals: first-generation students, veterans. They have 
recruited them into junk programs.
  Education should always be a vehicle to opportunity. Instead, these 
students are left with a bag of promises and crushing student debt.
  This is a real problem. This a real issue. That is why President 
Obama's Department of Education enacted the borrower defense rule to 
outline a clear, transparent process for student loan relief and to 
institute protections for those students and protections for taxpayers 
as well, because we are often talking about taxpayer-backed loans. The 
Obama borrower defense rule would help defrauded students get the loan 
debt relief that is owed to them under the law.
  Secretary DeVos, however, has refused to implement this rule, and as 
of December 2019, 240,000 defrauded borrowers are still waiting for her 
to act on their claims. That includes 6,000 people from my home State. 
This rule further underscores why Secretary DeVos is unsuited for this 
position.
  We have to protect students from these for-profit colleges that have 
defrauded them, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this rule and the legislation that will be coming to the floor.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Soon we will vote on the previous question, and if we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to require the 
House to immediately proceed to consideration of H. Res. 791, a 
resolution supporting the protestors in Iran.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader, to explain the 
amendment.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the world saw powerful images coming 
out of Tehran. Iranian protestors, many of them students, braved gas 
and gunfire to gather in the streets and speak out against their 
oppressive government for lying to its people. We saw video footage of 
people putting their personal safety at risk so their fellow citizens 
and the countries of the world could know the truth about what was 
going on inside Iran.
  The Iranian protesters are showing incredible courage, standing up to 
a government that kills and brutally silences its own people. To get a 
sense of how brave their actions are, think about this: When Iranians 
took to the streets to protest late last year, many of them were shot 
and killed by their own country's security forces. Death tolls show 
Iran's Government killed 1,500 people during the 2-month demonstration.
  According to experts, this is the bloodiest crackdown on protestors 
since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It came after the Supreme Leader 
of Iran gave a chilling order to ``do whatever it takes to end it.''

  Sadly, attacks on innocent civilians have been all too common in 
Iran. This is just another horrifying chapter in their long history of 
harming their own citizens.
  What is happening in Iran is a reminder that here in the United 
States there should never be any hesitation to stand with people in 
their calls for freedom. From the beginning, America has been a shining 
beacon of hope for those seeking a free society. Our task is to embrace 
that identity and the responsibility that comes with it.
  Especially now, we cannot shrink from the sources of our national 
greatness. That is why I stand here today: to ask you to lend freedom 
your voice and unconditional support.
  The resolution I introduced yesterday accomplishes three things:
  It condemns the Government of Iran for shooting down Ukraine 
International Airlines flight 752, which killed 172 innocent civilians;
  It expresses unequivocal support for the Iranian protesters; and
  It calls on the Iranian regime to not use force against its own 
people, as it has done so many times before.
  This resolution sends a strong message that the United States stands 
with the Iranian people and we are with them in their demands for free 
and honest government.
  But the resolution also intends to amplify the voice of the Iranian 
protestors. It does not call for anything Iranians have not already 
demanded themselves.
  This is an issue on which Congress should and must speak with one 
voice. We already passed similar measures supporting Hong Kong 
protesters by substantial bipartisan margins. It should not be 
difficult for us to pass this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been thinking a lot about what the Iranian 
protests mean today and in the future, and two things come to mind: a 
story and a quote.

                              {time}  1245

  The story is a small one. It happened a couple days ago at a 
university in Tehran. It is about a group of students and two big 
flags.
  The Iranian Government had painted large American and Israeli flags 
in the middle of the street, as a sign of disrespect expecting people 
to walk over them. But a group of Iranian students courageously defied 
the regime's wishes. They would not walk on the flag and booed those 
who did. Some reported that the students were chanting ``our enemy is 
in Iran, not America.''

[[Page H219]]

There are moments in time of history that the craving for freedom gets 
displayed, be it a young, lone man standing in front of tanks in 
Tiananmen Square, or be it some students in Tehran with fear just a few 
months before of being murdered, but not willing to walk on the 
American flag. A small moment with big meaning, for the students, for 
Iran and for us. It reminds me of the Hong Kong protestors who waved 
American flags and sang our national anthem.
  The quote I have been thinking of comes from an anthology of speeches 
that Frederick Douglass read as a young man. The quote is this, ``Let 
it be remembered, there is no luxury so exquisite as the exercise of 
humanity, and no post so honorable as his, who defends the rights of 
man.''
  Mr. Speaker, America is more than a country. We are an idea, an 
inspiration for those who yearn to be free and have the ability and 
dignity to determine their own destiny.
  So many times in this body as these moments rose around the world, be 
it the shipyard workers of Poland, be it the craving of the Berlin Wall 
collapsing and becoming one, be it those in Hong Kong that want just 
freedom of speech.
  Let us not be the Congress that misses the opportunity. Let us not be 
the Congress that takes 1 week earlier and sends a message to the Iran 
Government that is much different, that we are divided, that we would 
not stand up if they murdered their own people again, or we would not 
stand up if those who are young students who rose and would not walk 
across an American flag and booed those who would, those who would 
stand up in Iran and say ``the enemy is in Iran, not in America.'' Let 
us not be that Congress.
  Let us take this moment in time where history has shown that we are 
right when we stand with anyone who craves freedom. This resolution is 
the right way to amplify the call for freedom in Iran.
  It is not just those on C-SPAN who are watching, it is the world who 
is watching. The world is much smaller today than at those other times. 
We will not have to wait for days or hours for the news to come across. 
It will be in a tweet, it will be in a text, or it will be in an 
Instagram.
  There are important issues in this Nation, but there are none more 
important than whether we stand for freedom. I do not want this 
Congress to walk in shame that they missed this window. I do not want 
historians to look back in a few decades and see civilians were killed 
because they stood for freedom and America stood quiet. That is why I 
am asking that we vote ``no'' on this PQ. This resolution deserves to 
be heard, but more importantly, the world deserves to hear this 
Congress act.
  Do you agree that America is more than a country; that America is an 
idea, that it could be so great of an inspiration, it would move the 
students to crave what we fought for? Let's take this moment in time to 
tell them we hear them, we stand with them, and this America will 
always defend freedom here and around the world.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to the comments from my friend from California.
  We know the Government of Iran admitted to mistakenly shooting down 
the Ukraine International Airlines flight. It was a tragedy, and 
tragedies led to tragedy. The people of Iran stood up and demanded 
accountability and are standing up from their government today.
  This Congress supports those who have stood up to their government 
demanding transparency and fighting for their rights. That is why the 
concurrent resolution we passed last week reaffirmed that it is in our 
national interest to support the people of Iran and other Middle 
Eastern countries who demand an end to government corruption in 
violation of basic human rights.
  As of this morning, the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding a 
hearing to examine our policy with Iran. While the Foreign Affairs 
Committee is hearing from experts on Iran, the House is taking action 
to protect students and protect Americans from discrimination in the 
workplace, and that is what this rule is about.
  Make no mistake, defeating the previous question is not a vote on the 
McCarthy resolution, it is a vote to hand over control of the House 
floor to the minority.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question so we 
may proceed to these critical pieces of legislation without delay.
  I might add, just on a personal note, I would ask my colleagues to 
help--and I am sure they have had some cases of this--the Iranian 
Americans who have come to my office in my district with very troubling 
stories about their relatives who regularly have come to visit them in 
this country who are unable to come right now because of the travel ban 
by this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have been a professor of constitutional 
law for 29 years, so I know the relationship between universities and 
students is sacred. We pledge to teach young people everything we know 
in order to propel them to become engaged citizens, educated human 
beings, and effective actors in the economy and society.
  When I hear about for-profit colleges and universities ripping off 
young people and their families and plunging them into debt for 
unconscionable get-rich-quick schemes, it infuriates me as a 
professor, as a father, and as a Member of the House of Representatives 
representing the people of Maryland.

  These rip-off institutions like Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical 
Institute, which collapsed last year, leaves students with crushing 
debt, degrees that are not worth the paper they are printed on, and 
broken promises for the future.
  The Obama administration adopted the borrower defense rule to 
authorize the Department of Education to provide debt relief to student 
borrowers who have been defrauded by these predatory, low-rent higher 
ed rip-off academies.
  In Maryland, we have 3,754 students waiting for the Department of 
Education to review their borrower defense claims and relieve them of 
millions of dollars in loans that the American government disbursed to 
predatory colleges. Secretary Betsy DeVos, who is to education what 
Attorney General Barr is to justice, is not only keeping the Department 
of Education from processing 240,000 defrauded borrower claims 
nationwide, but she has drafted a new rule to make it nearly impossible 
for students to obtain relief from fraudulent colleges as of June 2020.
  Secretary DeVos wants to replace a system of higher ed with a new 
system of higher debt. Under the old rule, groups of students defrauded 
by a predatory college would have received an automatic loan discharge 
of the debt from the rip-off institution. Under the new rule, defrauded 
students would have to submit individualized evidence to the 
satisfaction of the department that rip-off colleges intentionally 
misrepresented degree program outcomes, quality of instruction, or job 
placement opportunities. So even where these Bonnie-and-Clyde schools 
clearly violated the law en masse, students can still be denied relief 
if they can't prove that they were individually and intentionally 
deceived, if they can't file their claim fast enough, or if they can't 
document how much financial harm they have personally suffered.
  Billionaire Secretary DeVos, the patron saint of the rip-off 
academies, is basically telling working class kids across America that 
life isn't fair, and now she is making that the law. Most victims of 
the higher debt industry will never fully recover from the lost time 
and opportunity, but by allowing these miseducation hucksters to rip 
them off, we are implicated as a Nation, and we must not fail them 
again. We must fully forgive every penny that the students were taken 
on a ride for. We must overrule the DeVos rule.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I 
appreciate this time to speak on behalf of my congressional district, 
which I lovingly call the ``13th District Strong.''
  Mr. Speaker, instead of working on behalf of students, Secretary 
DeVos is enriching predatory for-profit colleges that leave students 
with crushing debt

[[Page H220]]

and useless degrees, and I rise today because we have to stop it.
  If you want to see harm caused by the legacy of the DeVos-led 
policies, look no further than my district. In fact, students in 
Michigan will suffer for years to come because of Secretary DeVos' 
consistent record of putting for-profit interests first. And who are 
Secretary DeVos' latest targets, student borrowers who were defrauded 
by large for-profit colleges. Scams, Mr. Speaker.
  I heard from one constituent in my district who was deceived by a 
for-profit college that suddenly, with no notice closed its doors 6 
months into her 1-year program. Now she is burdened with thousands of 
dollars in loans and nothing to show for them, not even a certificate 
or a diploma. She did apply for the forgiveness program through the 
Department of Education but was denied.
  If we don't stop this latest DeVos rule, we will guarantee that my 
constituent will bear the burden of unfairly paying for a diploma she 
has never received.
  It is outrageous that our residents are the ones being punished 
instead of protected from this type of fraud and abuse. Sometimes I 
think these words ``fraud and abuse'' are just not strong enough. These 
are scams, criminal activity by these corporations coming in and 
targeting communities like mine that the majority are people of color.
  Look at the advertisement, they are targeting specific communities 
where I have a number of single mothers who want to go back to school 
and better their lives or other folks who are nontraditional students 
are who they target. Again, these are the most vulnerable communities 
that we all represent.
  We need to stop Secretary DeVos from this relentless effort to 
protect the bottom line for corporations at the expense of our 
residents, the students.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and primarily in opposition to H.R. 
1230, that is one of the subjects of this combined rule that we have.
  The legislation that is coming before, the Protecting Older Workers 
Against Discrimination Act, reaches way too far. I am one of the people 
in this Congress that has met payroll clear back to 1975. I haven't 
kept track of all the people we hired, but we hired them across the 
full range that we had the opportunity of their age, whether it was on 
the young side or whether they stopped showing up on the other side. We 
want people that can do the job, and we want to take good care of those 
folks. We want to build a reputation that we are a good place to work. 
I want to have all of those workers come together at the Christmas 
party and join together like family, and that is what happened just 
this past week with King Construction.
  I think about what the impact of this proposed legislation does, and 
it works in the reverse of what many of the proponents would like to 
have it do. Certainly, when you take the definition of age 
discrimination and you expand it to mean if it is only the 
preponderance of the evidence--what we have in current law is a 
preponderance of evidence and the but-for language.

  In other words, if an employee alleges they have been discriminated 
against because of age, there could be multiple other factors that were 
involved in that decision. Yet, as long as age is a component and it 
could be asserted effectively that that age was a but-for component, 
then that would be satisfactory as far as the legislation is concerned.
  I think what happens instead is employers make prudent decisions, and 
when they do the hire, they are going to think, I have this applicant 
before me that is 62 years old. Picking an age, it could be 72 or 75 or 
less. That employer is going to have to make the calculation, what if 
this person is just setting me up? Or what if this person can't do the 
job and I have to remove them or terminate them? You are setting 
yourself up as an employer for potential liability, and that decision 
gets made at the hiring end, which means there will be a lot of seniors 
that don't have an opportunity to work because of the concern about the 
litigation that could be brought forward.
  We have protection now, Mr. Speaker, in law and in state law, and 
that is where it needs to stay. It is a problem that doesn't exist and 
doesn't need to be solved.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, I 
want to mention, like the previous speaker, I am a Member of this House 
who made payrolls for over 35 years in the restaurant business. I have 
a different perspective.
  I wanted to hire the most talented person in front of me, and I 
wanted my managers to do the same thing. I don't think this rule, these 
kinds of laws, will inhibit that.
  I understand the intuitive perspective, but if you believe in hiring 
the best person, I don't think you have to be afraid of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rules Committee's 
motion and passage of the underlying bill, H.J. Res. 76, which will 
block Secretary Betsy DeVos' antistudent borrower defense rule.
  Over the last 5 years, for-profit college chains have, without 
warning, closed their doors on enrolled students who had paid their 
tuition--Corinthian College, ITT Tech, Dream Center, and Education 
Management Corporation--as have smaller schools like Ridley-Lowell in 
New London, Connecticut, which shut its doors midterm without notice on 
a school day 2 years ago.
  In 1993, Congress created the borrower defense rule through the 
Higher Education Act to relieve student loan debt for student victims 
of fraud. Now, we have a Secretary of Education who wants to gut that 
law by making students whose classes, diplomas, and certificates have 
been terminated have to jump through a ridiculous maze of hoops before 
they can get what Congress intended back in 1993 and what the Obama 
administration was actually implementing--namely, justice--a complete 
discharge of student loan debt on the basis that students were victims 
of fraud.
  The convoluted explanation that the DeVos Department used to deny 
discharge is a smokescreen for the administration's blatant bias in 
favor of for-profit colleges.
  One group that sees the harm that the Education Department will do 
with the new rule is, surprisingly to some, The American Legion, 
America's oldest and largest veterans organization. As the National 
Commander stated recently, thousands of student veterans have been 
targeted and defrauded over the years by some of these rip-offs and 
have lost precious GI Bill benefits as a result.
  As the commander states: ``The rule, as currently written, is 
fundamentally rigged against defrauded borrowers of student loans, 
depriving them of the opportunity for debt relief that Congress 
intended to afford them under the Higher Education Act.''
  Mr. Speaker, this Chamber should heed The American Legion, stand up 
for student veterans and all students, and vote for H.J. Res. 76.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Shalala), a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SHALALA. Mr. Speaker, the 2016 borrower defense rule created a 
process for student loan borrowers to demonstrate that their loans did 
not need to be repaid due to their school's misleading, fraudulent, or 
otherwise illegal conduct.
  Many of those that closed their doors left thousands of students with 
no credible recourse. Instead of working to protect students and 
taxpayers, however, the Education Secretary and the Department have 
repeatedly sided with these bad actors.
  By rewriting the borrower defense rule to favor those institutions, 
the Secretary has made it harder for borrowers to get relief and 
shifted the cost of providing debt relief from the schools to the 
taxpayer.

[[Page H221]]

  Several independent reports have concluded that this rewrite is 
fundamentally rigged against defrauded borrowers, depriving them of the 
opportunity for assistance promised them under the Higher Education 
Act. According to an analysis based on the Department's data, the 
changes to the financial triggers in the 2019 rule will result in 
institutions repaying only 1 percent of the eligible loan debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I have led three institutions of higher education. The 
Secretary has created a bureaucratic nightmare. Even I, after reading 
the regulation carefully, could not figure out all the information that 
was necessary to apply for relief.
  The Federal Government should be putting students and taxpayers first 
rather than helping financially irresponsible schools stay afloat.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly 20,000 students in my State are currently seeking 
relief because they were cheated by predatory colleges. I did not come 
to Congress to protect corporations that seek to take advantage of low-
income students, veterans, and taxpayers.
  Until we take a definitive stance on for-profit schools, they will 
continue to defraud students.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. DeSaulnier) how many more speakers he has.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a September 3 
Institute for College Access and Success article titled ``Defrauded 
Students Left Holding the Bag Until Final `Borrower Defense' Rule.''

    [From The Institute for College Access & Success, Sept. 3, 2019]

    Defrauded Students Left Holding the Bag Under Final ``Borrower 
                             Defense'' Rule

       Claiming to protect students and hold colleges accountable, 
     on Friday the Department of Education finalized its so-called 
     borrower defense rule. The rule allows students to seek to 
     cancel student loans connected to fraud and other illegal 
     activity by their colleges. ``If a school defrauds students, 
     it must be held accountable,'' said Secretary of Education 
     Betsy DeVos in the press release.
       Yet the Trump Administration's proposal would do virtually 
     nothing to hold schools accountable for their misdeeds or to 
     protect students who were wronged. To really understand the 
     impact of the rule, you have look at page 669 of the notice 
     where--in a table titled ``Assumptions for Main Budget 
     Estimate Compared to PB2020 Baseline''--the Department 
     published its own estimates of the likely impact of the rule:
       Borrowers will be required to repay the vast majority of 
     loans resulting from colleges' wrongdoing. Only about 3 cents 
     of every dollar borrowed will be forgiven under the borrower 
     defense rule.
       Colleges, on the other hand, will rarely face any 
     questions. They will repay only about a penny for every 
     dollar of loans stemming from misconduct.
       The Department expects substantial amounts of illegal 
     activity by colleges. In 2021 alone, the Department expects 
     nearly 200,000 borrowers to suffer from colleges' illegal 
     conduct, but their rule would leave borrowers to repay 97 
     percent of the resulting $2.5 billion in debt.
       Source: TICAS analysis of data provided by the U.S. 
     Department of Education, ``U.S. Department of Education 
     Finalizes Regulations to Protect Student Borrowers, Hold 
     Higher Education Institutions Accountable and Save Taxpayers 
     $11.1 Billion Over 10 Years,'' August 30, 2019. Available at 
     https://bit.ly/21POWdk.
       Methodology: Figures derived from U.S. Department of 
     Education's publication of the unofficial text of the final 
     rule on its web site on August 30, 2019. U.S. Department of 
     Education, ``U.S. Department of Education Finalizes 
     Regulations to Protect Student Borrowers, Hold Higher 
     Education Institutions Accountable and Save Taxpayers $11.1 
     Billion Over 10 Years,'' August 30, 2019. Available at 
     https://bit.ly/21POWdk. Because Table 3 provides the data by 
     sector, we used other Department data on loan volume by 
     sector to produce a weighted average, on the assumption that 
     these figures are consistent over time. U.S. Department of 
     Education, ``Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Proposal,'' March 11, 
     2019, page Q-30, https://bit.ly/21XI7Xm. To translate these 
     percentages into the number of affected students, we used 
     other Department data on the number of students borrowing 
     federal loans, again assuming that these figures are similar 
     from year to year. Federal Student Aid Data Center, ``Aid 
     Recipients Summary,'' April 2019, https://bit.ly/l2MGL5wc. To 
     translate these percentages into dollar terms, we used 
     projected loan volume in year 2021 from the Congressional 
     Budget Office. Congressional Budget Office, ``Student Loan 
     Programs--CBO's May 2019 Baseline,'' May 2019, https://
bit.ly/21A5juo. We examined fiscal year 2021, the first full 
     year of the rule's implementation.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, according to the Institute for College 
Access & Success, the DeVos rule would forgive just 3 cents of every 
dollar borrowed by students. That means those scammed by bad actors and 
fly-by-night institutions would be forced to repay the vast majority of 
their loans for degrees they didn't get, often through no fault of 
their own.
  We need to help defrauded borrowers, not defend for-profit colleges. 
That is what this resolution is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Stevens).
  Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 76 because 
we can no longer allow the denial of debt relief to students defrauded 
by predatory colleges.
  We can no longer allow a system that looks to line the pockets of the 
failed for-profits at the expense of students. We can no longer allow 
Secretary DeVos to ignore a court order as she attempts to turn over 
every action of the previous administration at the expense of the 
American taxpayer and the American public.
  People have been defrauded; people have been robbed; and we need 
justice.
  Nearly 8,000 Michigan borrowers are waiting for relief from paying 
their Federal student loans, including Erica Maupin, who was going to 
school to become a paralegal until she was defrauded by a Corinthian 
College. Erica had to abandon her dream, and now she doesn't know how 
she is going to provide for her family and pay off her debt because the 
Federal Government isn't keeping its promise.
  I am glad that the House is taking this step today. We should all be 
proud that the House is taking this action. However, we should also 
recognize it comes at the expense of a great step backward of the 
current administration.
  Because of the step backward that they took, we now have to take 
another two big steps forward to right this wrong and to bring justice 
to people like Erica, to people like the Michiganders who are waiting 
for their justice are are waiting for their debt relief, and for our 
For the People Agenda.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying measures do not protect vulnerable 
Americans as intended.
  H.R. 1230 would make it more difficult to prove age as a motivating 
factor in adverse employment actions. Republicans remain committed to 
eliminating all forms of discrimination and ensuring a productive and 
competitive workforce, but this bill ignores Supreme Court decisions 
and will place opportunities in the hands of trial lawyers rather than 
hardworking Americans.
  H.J. Res. 76 is simply another partisan attempt to deny President 
Trump any success, even if it means harming American students.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember when President Bush signed a Congressional 
Review Act overturning some of the ergonomic rules that the Clinton 
administration issued literally days before that President left office.
  At the time, I ran a medical practice. I was a business owner 
wondering how I was going to pay for and comply with these new rules 
that seemed burdensome, complicated, and confusing. The repeal of these 
rules relieved what was sure to be a heavy burden on my shoulders and, 
certainly, many other small businesses.
  Congressional Review Act resolutions have consequences, and we should 
fully evaluate the effect that they will have on Americans rather than 
just play politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' 
vote on the rule, and a ``no'' vote on the underlying measures.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, these two issues are extremely important to the American 
public.
  When I think of the comments from my friend from Iowa and the 
comments about having made a payroll, I reflect on my career making 
those obligations. He neglected to say that doing

[[Page H222]]

what he suggested employers would do is discriminatory on its face.
  I knew that when I instructed my managers and when I interviewed 
prospective employees, I was not to discriminate based on certain 
Federal and State categories. So by taking the lead that he assumed 
that some employers might do, that you wouldn't hire somebody who is 
older because you might find yourself in court, that would in itself be 
discriminatory.
  What we are doing with this legislation is just bringing this to an 
equal perspective with other categories. You shouldn't discriminate 
based on ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference. Why should you have 
any different performance standards or adhere to the same level for 
older people?
  Given that baby boomers, people of my generation, find they have to 
work longer and harder, and given the issues around retirement, I would 
think that all of us would want to make sure that they were protected 
and that the economy would get the benefit of their wisdom and 
experience, and not have them discriminated against.
  On the second subject, Ben Franklin once famously said at the 
beginning of this country that an investment in education is always the 
best investment.
  Sadly, with this administration, Mr. Franklin might not say that 
because young people who are encouraged to get degrees, to get 
undergraduate degrees and graduate degrees to be part of a knowledge-
based economy, to take that access to the best educational system in 
the world in higher education in this country, it would end with them 
in debt and with a degree that is worthless in the open marketplace.
  I would think that all Members of Congress would want to protect both 
aging workers and students who are defrauded.
  Mr. Speaker, as you can see, we are on the floor this week to restore 
justice to those who need our help. Struggling students and workers 
deserve our support, not for us to turn our backs on them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 790

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 791) condemning the actions of the 
     Government of Iran and supporting the protesters in Iran, 
     their demands for accountability, and their desire for the 
     Government of Iran to respect freedom and human rights. The 
     resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble 
     to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division 
     of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall 
     not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 791.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of the adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 191, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 16]

                               YEAS--226

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--191

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Aderholt
     Byrne
     Clay
     Crawford
     Gabbard
     Kirkpatrick
     Lesko
     Lewis
     Marchant
     McClintock
     Richmond
     Walker

                              {time}  1343

  Messrs. POSEY and SMITH of New Jersey changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H223]]

  

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 200, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 17]

                               YEAS--216

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--200

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Case
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crenshaw
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Aderholt
     Byrne
     Clay
     Crawford
     Gabbard
     Kirkpatrick
     Lesko
     Lewis
     Marchant
     McClintock
     Richmond
     Velazquez
     Walker

                              {time}  1352

  Mr. VAN DREW changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was absent today due to a medical 
emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall 
No. 16, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 17.

                          ____________________