[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.
____________________