[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H305-H315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT 
       OF EDUCATION RELATING TO ``BORROWER DEFENSE INSTITUTIONAL 
                            ACCOUNTABILITY''

  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 790, I 
call up 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration 
in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 790, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 76

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Education 
     relating to ``Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability'' 
     (84 Fed. Reg. 49788 (September 23, 2019)), and such rule 
     shall have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  The gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee) and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 76.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today for one reason: to ask that my 
colleagues in this House stand with me to make clear to the American 
people that we care more about defending students than enriching 
predatory schools. That is what my joint resolution, H.J. Res. 76, is 
all about.
  In 1992 Congress added a rule known as borrower defense to the Higher 
Education Act to give students a legal right to seek forgiveness on 
their Federal student loans because of fraud by their schools.
  Predatory school misconduct in the eighties was so rampant it was 
painfully clear to Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between that 
we need protections in place for students who are scammed and cheated 
by their institution, and that is just as true today.
  Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, University of Phoenix, and Dream 
Center--350,000 students have filed claims alleging they were defrauded 
by these schools. They were lied to about the job prospects they would 
get from these schools, they were lied to about the transferability of 
their credits, and they were lied to about the quality of education 
they would receive. The only thing they got was a useless degree and a 
mountain of debt after these schools abruptly closed because of rampant 
misconduct.
  The most painful part is that these are mostly students from low-
income communities, people of color, and veterans. These are Americans 
we should be standing up for, not taking advantage of.
  In 2016 the last administration created a new borrower defense rule 
to streamline the process to help these students.
  It sounds pretty good, right?
  Not to Betsy DeVos. She then rewrote the borrower defense rule to 
make it almost impossible for a defrauded student to get relief on 
their student loans. Even in cases where schools clearly violated the 
law, the burden of proof on the defrauded student is so absurdly 
unrealistic that a student would need to hire a team of lawyers to have 
a shot at proving intent and misconduct from the school.
  But the point made by proponents of this borrower defense rule that 
is most insulting is that the new rule saves taxpayer dollars. That is 
simply false. The new rule severely weakens the early warning system 
that ensures predatory schools, not taxpayers, cover the cost of debt 
relief. As a result in the few cases where relief is rewarded under the 
DeVos rule, taxpayers will be the ones to foot the bill. Beyond that, 
the only reason you can say that this rule actually saves money is 
because we are denying relief to every legitimately defrauded student.
  Let me be clear: if Betty DeVos' 2019 borrower defense rule goes into 
effect, more students will become victims of fraud with no way to climb 
out of the hole that our government dug for them.
  This puts my colleagues in Congress on the record. Members have a 
choice to make, and if they choose to vote against this resolution, 
then they will have to go back home and tell thousands of students, 
veterans, and their constituents in their district that they choose to 
be on the side of predatory schools over them.
  I think the choice is clear.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 76, the latest 
attempt by House Democrats to undermine the Trump administration. It 
seems these attempts will never end.
  Specifically, the resolution would undo the Education Department's 
efforts to assist students who have been defrauded by colleges and 
universities while also protecting taxpayer interest.
  Any school that has taken advantage of students must be held 
accountable. Students who have been lied to and suffered financial harm 
are entitled to relief and forgiveness. We can and should have 
bipartisan agreement on these points.
  Sadly, Democrats have a long track record of pursuing radical 
ideological objectives at the expense of taxpayers, students, and 
schools. Today it is clear that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are more interested in tearing down the Trump administration than 
providing real solutions.
  Before I touch upon the advantages of the Trump administration's new 
rule, I would like to provide some context on the previous 
administration's

[[Page H306]]

so-called borrower defense rule and its many shortcomings.
  The Obama administration's overzealous political actions created a 
dangerous domino effect. In 2016, during the final months of his 
Presidency, President Obama implemented a borrower defense regulation 
that was irresponsible, drastically exceeded the scope of current 
practice, and came with the shocking price tag for the American 
taxpayer of $42 billion.
  The Obama regulations blurred the line between fraud and inadvertent 
mistakes made by schools. The difference between the two is critical, 
Mr. Speaker, because the Education Department can levy significant 
financial penalties on institutions found to engage in fraud which can 
cause a school to have to close despite no intentional wrongdoing. Most 
schools do not have a reckless disregard for the truth.

  With this flawed rule in place, many schools could face harsh 
financial penalties forcing them to close leaving millions of students 
without access to their higher education opportunity. In fact, several 
historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs, wrote to President 
Obama's Education Secretary John King, Jr., with concerns about Obama's 
defense rule. Their letter stated:

       In fact, the proposed regulation language could undermine 
     the financial viability of a number of academic institutions 
     and could possibly bankrupt less financially secured colleges 
     and universities.

  In the end, the Obama regulations created more chaos than clarity and 
encouraged tens of thousands of borrowers, whether they were harmed or 
not, to apply to have their loans forgiven. This was nothing more than 
a political move by the left to provide a backdoor scheme to hand out 
free education. So it is not surprising that claim filings for loan 
forgiveness went from 59 in the first 20 years to roughly 300,000 
claims submitted in the last 5 years.
  President Trump realized quickly that placing a $42 billion burden on 
the backs of taxpayers was not the answer, and his administration made 
it a priority to halt the Obama-era regulation from going into effect. 
The Trump administration worked to instill some common sense into the 
rulemaking process.
  As a result, the administration produced a rule with clearer 
standards for borrower defense and increased transparency for both 
students and institutions.
  Among other benefits, the new rule makes sure students who have been 
lied to and suffered financial harm receive relief; reduces the cost of 
the 2016 Obama-era regulation by $11 billion because it helps students 
complete their education rather than indiscriminately closing schools; 
holds all institutions, not just for-profit colleges, accountable for 
misrepresentation instead of picking winners and losers at considerable 
cost to taxpayers; ensures due process for all parties; extends the 
look-back window to qualify for closed school loan discharges from 120 
to 180 days, so when schools close more students are eligible for 
forgiveness; and allows for arbitration which could result in 
borrowers' recovering resources not provided by the Education 
Department such as cash payments or other expenses.
  The bottom line is this: the Trump administration's borrower defense 
rule protects student borrowers, holds all higher education 
institutions accountable, and saves taxpayers $11 billion.
  The American people sent us to Washington to work together and solve 
important issues. Our constituents would be far better served if the 
Democrat majority used its time to find real solutions to our Nation's 
issues instead of continuing to lament the 2016 election results.
  Republicans stand ready to provide relief to students who have been 
harmed by fraud, and the borrower defense rules issued by the Trump 
administration are the answer.
  I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do away 
with the political blame game so we can move forward and work in a 
bipartisan manner to address issues facing America.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on H.J. Res. 76, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, when a college makes promises 
to recruit students, we expect those promises to be met. Yet time after 
time we see colleges closing or losing accreditation, leaving their 
students with worthless degrees.
  There are currently 240,000 defrauded students waiting for loan 
relief, and more than 40,000 of these students are from my home State 
of California. These defrauded student borrowers have been needlessly 
waiting--many for over a year--to obtain this student loan relief.
  The most inexcusable part of this situation is that the Department of 
Education, during all this time, could have brought relief to these 
students using the original borrower defense rule.
  Instead, this administration has decided to create an entirely 
worthless rule that, firstly, does almost nothing to help borrowers. 
Further, it provides clear preference to the very sham colleges that 
are compromising the integrity and the purpose of the original borrower 
defense rule.
  This recent rule is sending a message to the American public that any 
scammer can open up a school, collect money, defraud our students, and 
dodge any consequences.
  It is outrageous to learn about the hundreds of servicemen and -women 
who have tried to improve their professional standings by enrolling in 
one of these programs only to end up with a pointless credential and a 
lot of unconscionable debt. In these tragic cases, many have not only 
expended their GI Bill funding for good but have also lost years of 
their lives working hard and studying to gain these futile degrees.
  The original borrower defense rule was an honest attempt to address 
these grievances and give students their dignity back. Rather, we have 
here today a new rule that makes it nearly impossible for students to 
truly regain what has been lost due to this large-scale con job.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we making it harder for our defrauded students 
to recover their lives?
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is the first step toward 
blocking these flawed and misguided changes to the borrower defense 
rule from taking effect, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this resolution.

                              {time}  0930

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 76, certainly 
not because I want to defraud students, certainly not because I want to 
protect scam education institutions--not at all.
  The Department of Education released an updated and improved borrower 
defense rule last year for all the opposite reasons, to, in fact, 
protect students and protect quality education and promote that but 
also to protect the taxpayer. It did all of the above.
  I think we need to keep that in mind and not just spend our time on 
messaging. We want to have results that produce quality education 
opportunities for the future.
  The 2016 Obama administration rule was a broad, sweeping, reactionary 
measure, sadly, to an issue that requires a more nuanced solution that 
will have results.
  Defrauded students who have been financially harmed deserve relief, 
absolutely. The Department's 2019 rule establishes a fair process in 
which these students will get the relief they deserve.
  A point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I hearken back to the 
hearing we had with Secretary DeVos. I was embarrassed for the first 
time, really, in the many years I have been on this committee to hear 
someone who has spent her adult life promoting education maligned in 
that way. I would challenge any of our committee members, myself 
included, to exhibit the number of years, talent, and treasure put 
toward enhancing opportunities for schools and education, and, by the 
way, the students and success that we have seen. I think that the 
success that the President saw in this Secretary of Education was why 
she was put there.
  This rule that is in place right now, which we are debating today to 
try to

[[Page H307]]

change, is a rule that will enhance education as well as protect the 
taxpayers.
  When Secretary DeVos was before our committee last month, she 
explained how the Department is also taking proactive measures to 
prevent fraud from occurring through more transparency for students on 
the College Scorecard.
  Under the 2019 rule, predatory schools were held accountable for 
misrepresentations leading to financial harm to students. This rule 
also lays out a transparent framework that guarantees the process while 
establishing a proportional connection between financial harm and the 
amount awarded.
  Hard-earned taxpayer dollars should be used responsibly. I think we 
will all agree to that. This 2019 rule respects the taxpayer while also 
allowing appropriate relief for defrauded students and setting an 
example for institutions that we will not accept what has gone on.
  Mr. Speaker, I end by saying this: I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' today to keep a responsible system that protects defrauded 
students.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
joint resolution, and I congratulate the gentlewoman from Nevada for 
her leadership on this issue.
  Secretary DeVos and this administration have proven that they will go 
to the ends of the Earth to defend predatory for-profit colleges at the 
expense of our students and taxpayers.
  This holds true for the DeVos borrower defense rule, which creates 
unnecessary obstacles for students seeking debt relief from predatory 
for-profit colleges. It even punishes students with approved claims by 
allowing these colleges to deny students their transcripts and refuse 
to verify their earned credits.
  Passing this joint resolution is a crucial step, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it. But we also must build on this work by 
bringing our Higher Education Act reauthorization to the floor. Next 
up, we have to pass the College Affordability Act with even stronger 
protections for American students.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to add a personal note. From 2007 to 2011, I ran 
the workforce system of the State of Michigan. In those years, 
fraudulent, for-profit higher education programs emerged as a major 
problem in Michigan and in our Nation. As a former State program 
director, I can tell you that our States do not have the resources or 
the authority to remedy this problem. The Federal Government must act.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Mr. Johnny Taylor 
at the Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM.

                                        Society for Human Resource


                                                   Management,

                                 Alexandria, VA, January 15, 2020.
     Hon. Susan Davis,
     Chairman, U.S. House Education Subcommittee on Higher 
         Education and Workforce Investment, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lloyd Smucker,
     Ranking Member, U.S. House Education Subcommittee on Higher 
         Education and Workforce Investment, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Smucker: Every new 
     rule comes with the risk of unintended negative impact even 
     when the best of intentions exists on both sides. This is 
     particularly prevalent in higher education--a space I know 
     well following seven years as the President and CEO of the 
     Thurgood Marshall College Fund and having served as a Trustee 
     for the University of Miami, Drake University and the Cooper 
     Union. It is with this lens and my current lens as President 
     and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, Chair 
     of the President's Board of Advisors on HBCUs, and member of 
     the White House American Workforce Policy Advisory Board that 
     I feel compelled to provide perspective on the U.S. 
     Department of Education's updated rule governing borrower 
     defense to repayment.
       It's important to take a step back. Three and a half years 
     ago, the Department unveiled proposed revisions to the 
     borrower defense to repayment rule. During the comment period 
     many constituencies, including the HBCU community, asserted 
     that certain elements of the revisions had the potential to 
     be ``injurious and burdensome'' and could cause many schools 
     financial harm. These concerns referred mainly to the 
     standard by which institutions would be judged to have 
     misrepresented the conditions of a borrower's loan, 
     broadening of the definition of ``misrepresentation,'' and 
     the basis for potential administrative action by the 
     Secretary--including fines or termination from participation 
     in Title IV programs under the Higher Education Act (HEA).
       One of Secretary DeVos's first actions was to postpone the 
     effective date for the proposed borrower defense rules. She 
     then reconvened the negotiated rulemaking committees to 
     address, among other things, the concerns raised by HBCUs and 
     other Minority Serving Institutions that primarily serve 
     first-generation, low-income students. The Secretary 
     encouraged all parties to take a step back and find a 
     solution that would be fairer to students and schools and 
     relieve taxpayers of significant costs.
       A year later, having not reached consensus about the best 
     way forward, the Department of Education published its own 
     revised rules clarifying who is eligible for relief, the 
     maximum amount of said relief, and how long a borrower can 
     bring a claim. More importantly, the Department made a 
     commitment to consumer education for students and their 
     families prior to them enrolling in college instead of having 
     them litigate poor college choice decisions after-the-fact 
     when they've poured significant amounts of time and money 
     into earning a degree without any reasonable hope of 
     achieving a fair return on their investment. I'm of the 
     opinion that the Department's new borrower defense rules 
     protect individual borrowers from fraud, ensures 
     accountability across institutions of higher education, and 
     protects taxpayers.
       While the resulting new rules are not perfect, they go a 
     long way toward addressing the challenges of students and 
     colleges. The HBCU Community had major concerns about the 
     initial 2016 revisions because they placed all of the 
     accountability on the schools and had a low threshold for 
     punitive action. In addition, many college leaders disagreed 
     with the ``triggers'' for administrative action. The new 
     rules provide flexibility for schools to make changes to 
     their course offerings and graduation requirements based on 
     costs, student interest and employer needs without being 
     characterized as fraudulent. Now that nearly all of the major 
     concerns raised by the HBCU Community were addressed by the 
     Secretary, it is time to pass the rules so we can put our 
     collective energy into educating America's diverse future 
     workforce.
       America has a talent shortage--one that will only get worse 
     in the foreseeable future due to our low birth rate. Adding 
     insult to injury, we have a workforce in critical need of re-
     skilling with a very large percentage of Americans sitting on 
     the sidelines as a result and not participating in the labor 
     force. As borrowers and schools move forward, both groups 
     should be laser-focused on addressing this issue and 
     improving the employability of the U.S. workforce.
       On the front end, borrowers should select schools and 
     programs that lead to good jobs and whose costs are 
     commensurate with salaries for their industry of choice. Then 
     colleges, having enrolled the right students in the right 
     programs, must proactively develop relationships with 
     employers to co-design relevant curricula that meet our 
     country's need for skilled workers.
       All parties must put aside petty partisan differences to 
     arm our country with a highly-skilled future U.S. workforce 
     sans unnecessarily burdensome student loan debt. Supporting 
     the new borrower defense rules proposed by the Department of 
     Education is an important first step.
           Sincerely,

                                        Johnny C. Taylor, Jr.,

                                                  President & CEO.

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some 
quotes from the letter.
  ``This is particularly prevalent in higher education--a space I know 
well following 7 years as the president and CEO of the Thurgood 
Marshall College Fund and having served as trustee for the University 
of Miami, Drake University, and the Cooper Union. It is with this lens 
and my current lens as president and CEO of the Society for Human 
Resource Management, Chair of the President's Board of Advisors on 
HBCUs, and member of the White House American Workforce Policy Advisory 
Board that I feel compelled to provide perspective on the U.S. 
Department of Education's updated rule governing borrower defense to 
repayment. . . .
  ``I am of the opinion that the Department's new borrower defense 
rules protect individual borrowers from fraud, ensures accountability 
across institutions of higher education, and protects taxpayers. . . .
  ``The new rules provide flexibility for schools to make changes to 
their course offerings and graduation requirements based on costs, 
student interest, and employer needs without being characterized as 
fraudulent. Now that nearly all of the major concerns raised by the 
HBCU community were addressed by the Secretary, it is time to pass the 
rules so we can put our collective energy into educating America's 
diverse future workforce. . . .

[[Page H308]]

  ``All parties must put aside petty partisan differences to arm our 
country with a highly skilled future U.S. workforce sans unnecessarily 
burdensome student loan debt. Supporting the new borrower defense rules 
proposed by the Department of Education is an important first step.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this 
resolution and thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution conveys the congressional disapproval of 
the Department of Education's refusal to protect students and taxpayers 
from predatory institutions. Those students are victims of widespread, 
proven fraud about graduation rates, job placement rates, and 
transferability of credits.
  Fortunately, the law provides relief, but instead of maintaining the 
Obama-era borrower defense rule, which provides a fair and streamlined 
process to provide debt relief to defrauded students, the Department of 
Education has finalized a new borrower defense rule that prevents an 
overwhelming majority of defrauded students from getting relief.
  We should reject this new rule and provide meaningful relief to 
defrauded students. Making defrauded students whole is the right thing 
to do, but it is not the only thing we should do.
  We must ensure that students and taxpayers are not defrauded in the 
first place. That is why we should pass the College Affordability Act, 
a comprehensive overhaul of our higher education system that cracks 
down on low-quality, predatory schools. The College Affordability Act 
holds schools accountable for students' success and cuts the cost of 
college for students and families across the country.
  Mr. Speaker, to address the present problem, those students need 
relief today. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution of congressional disapproval.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. All institutions, regardless of their 
tax status, must be held accountable for fraudulent behavior, and that 
is exactly what the 2019 borrower defense regulation accomplishes.
  I am very interested in the way our colleagues are using the term and 
the way the Obama administration categorizes the schools we call for-
profits. They are called predatory. Why is that?
  It is very interesting to me that I have always thought that what 
makes this country great is our capitalistic system, yet our colleagues 
think that anybody that makes a profit is predatory. That is so counter 
to the American theme, the American way of life, but that is what they 
call them, predatory. It is really, really unfair to do that.
  Republicans care about all students, all institutions, and all 
taxpayers. It is a shame my friends across the aisle feel otherwise.
  Back in 2016, the previous administration let ``selective, regionally 
accredited liberal arts schools'' off the hook from facing consequences 
for inflating data in marketing materials.
  Students who filed a borrower defense claim in this situation would 
be denied relief. Why? Because President Obama's administration 
believed this theoretical school and the education the student 
subsequently received is somehow superior to other institutions. 
Justice was not served in this example.
  Before my colleagues argue that this example is theoretical and 
rarely happens, let me list a few examples, without naming names.
  A public flagship university gave U.S. News incorrect information 
about alumni contributions from 1999 to 2019.
  Last year, five schools were unranked from U.S. News & World Report 
after all five of those schools--two public and three private not-for-
profits--acknowledged they provided incorrect information.
  In 2018, a public university admitted, over the course of several 
years, that it intentionally--intentionally--submitted false data to 
boost the rankings of its online MBA program.
  Other examples in the past decade include prominent institutions 
fudging acceptance rates, SAT scores, high school GPAs, and graduation 
rates.
  The Trump administration recognizes the borrower defense to repayment 
process must be fair to students, taxpayers, and institutions. I am 
glad they struck a balance that gives due process to all parties 
involved.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 76, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Nevada has 21 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I would like to 
clarify for the record that this example that was just included by Ms. 
Foxx was an example that was included in the rule in 2016, and in fact, 
there were no claims filed under that example.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Bonamici).

                              {time}  0945

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. 
Res. 76, which will reverse the Trump administration's harmful new 
borrower defense rule.
  The initial borrower defense rule was designed to provide defrauded 
students with the debt relief they are entitled to receive under the 
Higher Education Act. Unfortunately, Secretary DeVos rewrote the rule 
to make it nearly impossible for future students who are victimized by 
deceptive institutions to get the relief they need and deserve.
  According to the Department's own estimate, only about 3 percent of 
the loan debt held by defrauded borrowers would be dismissed under the 
new rule. That is not justice for victims of fraud.
  We must also continue our work to update the Higher Education Act to 
prevent unscrupulous institutions from harming students and taxpayers 
in the first place. The College Affordability Act will hold 
institutions accountable and make college more affordable and equitable 
for everyone.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 76 today and the College 
Affordability Act when it comes to the floor.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, but 
I think what we all support and what we all agree on is that 
individuals who are harmed by fraudulent practices should have their 
debts forgiven.
  And let's just look at where we are. This is 20 years this has been 
on the books. For 20 years, 60 cases were filed--60, I will emphasize 
that. Since 2015, at the end of the previous administration, 287,000 
cases have been filed.
  So we all want to know if there is fraud. We don't want fraud. We 
don't want people harmed by fraud, individuals harmed by fraud to have 
to pay that back. And remember, the money is going to our hardworking 
taxpayers.
  So that is all this rules says. It says that there is fraud; you are 
harmed by fraud; and you don't have to pay it back as an individual.
  Let's just look at an example of that.
  What if the fraud of a school is they advertise a work placement rate 
of 85 percent and it is only 50 percent. Well, that is fraud. But if 
you were one of the 50 percent who got a job, were you harmed? You got 
your education; you got a job; you moved forward. Should the taxpayers 
forgive your student loans when you got the education and got the job 
that you were moving for?
  That is all. We are trying to make it reasonable. The 287,000 cases 
that are sitting before Secretary DeVos would be under the old rule. 
This is the new rule going forward, so people will know what it is and 
understand that, one, we are fighting fraud. If you were harmed by 
fraud and you can prove that as an individual, you still get your loans 
forgiven.
  I think it is reasonable. I think that it sets a process in place 
that people can understand. It has it going forward. I support the 
rule, and I oppose this resolution.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

[[Page H309]]

  Under Secretary Betsy DeVos, the Department of Education has 
abandoned its responsibility to put students first and hold predatory, 
for-profit colleges accountable. The Department has rolled back 
protections for students seeking a foothold in the middle class through 
higher education.
  In what amounts to a giveaway to predatory, for-profit colleges, 
Secretary DeVos has dismantled a crucial protection for students who 
were defrauded by shady institutions that saddled them with student 
loan debt, provided them with subpar education, and issued them useless 
degrees.
  Borrower defense to repayment was intended to provide full student 
loan debt forgiveness to defrauded students. But Secretary DeVos has 
issued a new rule which makes it harder for students to prove that they 
were defrauded and fails to provide students with the full student loan 
debt relief that they are legally entitled to.
  Now, to make this even worse, she eliminated protections for students 
whose schools shut down, shut down before they completed their 
programs, leaving them burdened with loans and often without the 
ability to transfer their credits elsewhere.
  240,000 students--nearly 42,000 students from California--are waiting 
for relief, suffering emotional and financial hardships in the process. 
Many of these students attended the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges, an 
institution that even my Republican colleagues have agreed was in the 
business of defrauding students.
  These students did everything right, but they were deceived by a slew 
of false promises from for-profit institutions that only saw them as a 
boost to their bottom line.
  Secretary DeVos is using the power of her office to defend a shady 
industry. Today, we are here to send a clear message: We Democrats 
stand with America's students who should be relieved of student debt 
unjustly accrued.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 76.
  We all want to make sure that America's students get the education 
they deserve in the college they pay for that education or the higher 
education institution. By advancing this legislation today, the 
majority of this Chamber seeks to turn back the clock on borrower 
defense, leading to dangerous consequences for students, those repaying 
their loans, and the American taxpayer.
  The Obama-era rule, which the majority seeks to return us to, was 
marked by regulatory chaos, excessive punishments, and ridiculous 
costs. The Obama rule had no clarity and sought to forgive student 
loans on a massive scale, regardless of the cost to the taxpayers.

  Estimates put the total cost of the loan forgiveness giveaway at $40 
billion. It also excessively punished schools with harsh penalties, 
sometimes leading to their closure, ending access to another avenue for 
higher education for some current and prospective students. That is why 
the 2019 Trump administration issued the new Borrower Defense 
Institutional Accountability rule.
  The new rule currently in effect provides:
  Regulatory clarity for all institutions;
  Affords due process to both students and institutions;
  Narrowly tailors relief to actual harm;
  Holds all institutions accountable for misrepresentation;
  Provides students with more options to continue their education 
should their school close; and
  Allows for faster relief by allowing institution-level arbitration.
  Importantly, the 2019 rule is estimated to save taxpayers $11 billion 
from the 2016 Obama rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to return to the outdated, 
costly, and confusing Obama-era rule the majority seeks to return to 
effect today.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the joint resolution.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to, first, clarify the record that the 60 students who 
filed claims in the past 20 years is because students didn't understand 
they had the right to file those claims.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for her 
fierce leadership on this.
  I rise in strong support of this resolution to block Betsy DeVos' 
callous attempt to rewrite the borrower defense repayment rule. That 
original rule protected student borrowers who have been cheated by 
predatory, for-profit colleges.
  This rule change would make it nearly impossible for defrauded 
students to have their loans forgiven, and it strips away justice for 
240,000 borrowers whose claims the Trump administration has refused to 
process. That includes my own constituents, whom I had a roundtable 
with, and they have filed claims after their school, the for-profit Art 
Institute of Seattle, abruptly closed last year.
  Some of those students have rightly applied for loan forgiveness 
through the borrower defense to repayment process because they are 
ineligible for closed school discharge, and now they face extreme 
barriers to the relief that they deserve because Secretary DeVos has 
put profits before the students she took an oath to serve.
  One of those students said: I am left with no degree, extra thousands 
of dollars in private loans that they pressured me to get. I feel 
tricked, guilted, and screwed.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution that will 
defend students, and I call on the House to also pass the College 
Affordability Act, which will crack down on predatory for-profit 
colleges in a comprehensive manner.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure the American people understand the 
truth, and it is especially important when we are on the floor of the 
House.
  What has been happening here this morning is that apples and oranges 
are being compared, and it is very important that that not happen here 
because that can mislead the public.
  I think most of us learned this in school. When laws are passed and 
rules are passed, they go forward, not backward, Mr. Speaker. The new 
rules go forward. They apply in the future. They don't go backward. 
They don't affect the people who were in school in some of these 
schools that closed before.
  Those students, unfortunately for those students, are under the 
previous rule, the Obama rule, and that is how they are being handled. 
That is the major problem here.
  Our colleagues are saying many of these people didn't know what the 
rules were. That is not the fault of the Federal Government, Mr. 
Speaker. It is up to the students to understand the rules.
  And, yes, many of them are having difficult times because the rule is 
so bad. That is exactly what the new rule is trying to fix. It is 
trying to bring clarity and help these students understand when they 
will be able to apply.
  But the students who were at Corinthian and ITT are being handled 
under the Obama-era rule, and that is exactly why they are having 
problems. We have been pointing that out over and over and over again, 
yet our colleagues refuse to acknowledge that that is the nub of the 
problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).
  Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 76, which was 
introduced by my good friend and colleague from Nevada, Susie Lee, and 
of which I am a proud cosponsor.
  Students defrauded by predatory for-profit colleges can be left with 
crushing debt, useless degrees, and none of the job opportunities they 
were promised.
  When Secretary DeVos has testified before the Education and Labor 
Committee over the past year, on two separate occasions she has claimed 
that students are her number one priority, as they should be. Yet, as 
Secretary, she has acted at all times as though students are the enemy 
and as though

[[Page H310]]

a quality and affordable education is her last priority.
  Secretary DeVos has the ability to provide immediate relief to 
students who were defrauded. Instead, she has halted loan relief for 
borrowers and changed the rules to deprive them of relief. Under the 
new rule from Secretary DeVos, defrauded borrowers can be denied debt 
relief, even in cases where predatory schools clearly violated the law.

  More than 7,000 Pennsylvanians are suffering while their applications 
for financial relief are sitting in limbo at the Department of 
Education. We must protect students and taxpayers by passing this 
resolution, which blocks the DeVos rule from going into effect.
  Students are my number one priority. Unfortunately, I don't believe 
that the Secretary can say the same.
  I am proud to stand up for students and to be an original cosponsor 
of this resolution. I am also proud that the Education and Labor 
Committee recently passed the College Affordability Act out of 
committee, which would provide more protections for students and 
taxpayers.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when I have had the privilege of being in that chair, I 
have often been reminded to ask Members to refrain from making comments 
about the President or Members of the Cabinet. I am not hearing that 
being said this morning, and I would just like to call it to the 
Speaker's attention.
  I would also like to say that as long as people are getting up on the 
floor and misrepresenting what is happening in this administration, I 
will continue to remind them that the rule that is being enforced is 
the Obama-era rule, and any students who are being harmed are being 
harmed as a result of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Secretary DeVos' new borrower defense rule drastically changes the 
existing 2016 rule making it harder for students to get the relief that 
they deserve. Only 3 percent of students are projected to even benefit 
from this new provision.
  Students should be focused on getting the quality education they were 
promised, not worrying about being saddled with large debts from 
schools that could not and did not deliver on that education promise.
  The Secretary's rule takes the burden of repayment away from the 
fraudulent institutions and places it on the back of the taxpayer. 
Americans should not be responsible for the dishonest actions of a 
predatory school.
  I thank Congresswoman Lee for introducing H.J. Res. 76, an important 
step in protecting our students and holding fraudulent institutions 
accountable.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  The taxpayers ought not pay the tab for a student who files a claim 
that says I didn't like the president of this school; therefore, my 
loan should be forgiven. Those are the claims being filed by some of 
the students.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
  Ms. OMAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the implementation of the 
harmful DeVos/Trump borrower defense regulation.
  Instead of working on behalf of students, Secretary DeVos is 
enriching predatory for-profit colleges that leave students with 
crushing debt. Instead of creating a streamlined process to help 
defrauded borrowers access relief and move forward with their lives, 
this administration has given dishonest schools new tools they can use 
to keep taking advantage of students.
  In my district in 2016, the courts found that the Minnesota School of 
Business and Globe University engaged in consumer fraud and purposely 
deceived more than 1,000 Minnesota students who were systematically 
misled to believe that they would obtain a degree and credits that were 
essentially meaningless, losing not only $33.8 million, but also their 
time and countless opportunities.
  It is the government's duty to look out for those victimized students 
and to make sure they don't continue to suffer at the hands of the 
greedy institutions that took advantage of them.
  Secretary DeVos should be ashamed of herself for failing to uphold 
that duty and for once again putting profit over people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
resolution.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the 2016 borrower defense regulation does a great 
disservice to our Nation's students and institutions of post-secondary 
education because the previous administration did not design the 
borrower defense rule to improve post-secondary education.
  Let me explain. The Higher Education Act establishes that a borrower 
can receive loan forgiveness if he or she attends an institution that 
engages in an act or omission which led the individual to borrow a 
loan. An example of an act or omission could be an institution lying 
about its graduation rates in order to lure more students to enroll in 
that program. That seems fair.
  It is important to note that in the 2019 rule, students who suffer 
financial harm from fraudulent institutions are eligible and will 
receive loan relief. But where the Obama administration went haywire 
was when they blurred the distinction between what acts or omissions 
constitute fraud versus an inadvertent mistake.
  Many institutions, including HBCUs and public flagship universities, 
were concerned that a single marketing error could set off a domino 
effect of borrowers seeking and receiving forgiveness.
  For example, in a New York Times article published in 2018, Henry N. 
Tisdale, the President of the small campus of Claflin University in 
Orangeburg, South Carolina, expressed concern over the Obama-era 
regulation. Mr. Tisdale said, ``A small mistake or error at a college 
like Claflin could put us out of business. We don't have the resources 
ready to respond to frivolous claims.''
  Claflin University is just one of the many small, nonprofit 
institutions that serve low-income, minority, and first-generation 
students that have become at risk due to the Obama-era rules. 
Institutions like these would be on the hook for debt and could close 
due to financial pressures. This would deny students their education, 
act as an economic drain on the community benefiting from the 
institution's business, and harm taxpayers who may ultimately be 
responsible to pay off the loans.
  It is reasonable to conclude that the Obama administration's borrower 
defense rule could be the deciding factor in colleges prematurely 
closing. In fact, the Obama administration estimated it would have the 
effect of closing many institutions, which is why their rule is 
projected to cost over $40 billion in 10 years. Luckily, the Trump 
administration acted quickly to correct the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to clarify that the comments that were just quoted were 
on the proposed rule, and those issues were fixed.

  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).
  Mr. TRONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of hundreds of thousands of students across 
the Nation who are victims of predatory for-profit colleges. Over 4,000 
borrowers in Maryland and 227,000 nationally are paying the price 
because the department, led by Betsy DeVos, appears to have 
intentionally decided not to process the claims.
  Before coming to Congress, I led a business of over 7,000 employees. 
At the end of the day, the buck stopped with me to make sure we had the 
staff that we needed to serve our customers. Not only did Secretary 
DeVos not have the staff she needed to follow the law, but through the 
new rule, this administration is proposing she is making it harder for 
students to get the relief they deserve.

[[Page H311]]

  This is not how we should treat America's students who are looking to 
make a better future for themselves. I urge my colleagues to stand with 
the students and reverse this Trump administration rule.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
  Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 76.
  I do agree with my colleagues across the aisle that as Members of 
Congress it is our job to ensure accountability over how taxpayer 
dollars are spent, and that is a very important aspect of our job here. 
And when tax dollars flow to an institution of higher education that 
has not lived up to its promises made to students, then defrauded 
individuals do deserve a transparent process to seek relief and have 
their student loans discharged.
  Under Secretary DeVos' leadership, the U.S. Department of Education's 
new borrower defense rule replaces a flawed process with one that is 
fair for taxpayers and is fair for students. The new rule establishes a 
defined standard for borrower defense to repayment, clearing up years 
of confusion that has left students in financial hardship and schools 
exposed to increased risk of closure despite no intentional 
misrepresentation.
  The Trump administration's rule also strengthens opportunities for 
relief for students who were misled by a school by expanding the window 
of time that students have to discharge their loans. But most 
importantly, this process, which was developed over many months and 
with stakeholder engagement through every step of the way, strengthened 
accountability on all institutions of higher education by ensuring that 
each and every school is held to the same standard, not just the 
taxpaying for-profit institutions.
  Despite all of these commonsense measures, today's CRA seeks to move 
us backwards simply to undermine the Trump administration while 
preventing students from making educational choices that best meet 
their needs.
  H.J. Res. 76 will repeal the Trump administration's rule to reinstate 
the flawed, confusing standards that were implemented in 2016. That 
rule, the Obama-era borrower defense rule, ignored due process, lowered 
the standard of proof, and left taxpayers on the hook for forgiving 
student loans to the tune of $42 billion regardless of an individual 
claim's merit.
  The Trump administration's thorough methodology for borrower defense 
claims ensures any and every student will have a pathway to have their 
student loans discharged if they have been defrauded while protecting 
taxpayer dollars from massive loan forgiveness schemes. In fact, this 
new rule is estimated to save taxpayers $11 billion.
  It is critical that we leave this rule in place to protect students 
and taxpayers alike. I urge my colleagues to place commonsense policy 
above politics and oppose this misguided CRA that ultimately will harm 
all Americans.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains 
on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Nevada has 11\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2 minutes.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Today I rise to offer my strong support for the joint resolution led 
by my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Susie Lee.
  On the Education and Labor Committee we are taking action on behalf 
of students who were fleeced by predatory for-profit colleges.
  Secretary DeVos has ignored hundreds of thousands of pending claims 
from defrauded borrowers and taxpayers. That includes almost 3,000 from 
my home State of Massachusetts. Despite having authority to provide 
full and immediate relief, the Secretary's borrower defense rule does 
not make students whole.
  Her new, partial-relief formula to determine debt forgiveness adds 
further insult to injury. We tested that formula in committee with the 
secretary and exposed how flawed it is, how it severely restricts the 
relief one can receive.
  H.J. Res. 76 is necessary to block efforts to weaken key consumer 
protections against crushing student debt and useless degrees.
  I thank Congresswoman Lee and the committee for taking legislative 
action, and I call upon my colleagues to support defrauded students in 
this joint resolution.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I thank Representatives  Bobby Scott and Susie Lee for their 
leadership on this important resolution. I rise to support H.J. Res. 76 
which blocks Secretary DeVos' attempts to undermine the much-needed 
borrower defense rule.

                              {time}  1015

  The original rule was implemented in 2016 to cancel the debt of those 
students defrauded by their colleges. The Secretary's replacement rule 
is shameful. It would cancel only 3 percent of the student loans that 
result from school misconduct.
  While totally unacceptable, the Secretary's actions are nothing new. 
The for-profit college industry has been exploiting students for 
decades, and I have been fighting them back for just as long.
  As an assemblywoman in California, I authored one of the Nation's 
first laws regulating for-profit schools. As a Congresswoman, I passed 
the 85/15 rule, which limited the amount of Federal funding for-profit 
colleges receive from taxpayers.
  In 2015, when the for-profit Corinthian Colleges closed down after 
years of fraud and misconduct, I was one of the Members of Congress to 
endorse and support the Corinthian 100, a group of former students who 
refused to pay back loans accrued while attending Corinthian.
  This Congress, I continue fighting for students. Last year, the House 
Financial Services Committee held two hearings examining the student 
loan crisis. Last month, the committee approved three bills that will 
provide strong student borrower protections, including for those harmed 
by for-profit colleges.
  Congress should not stand idly by while Secretary DeVos tries to make 
it easier for students to get defrauded by for-profit schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, Michele Kernizan is an Air Force veteran and 
a constituent of mine. After serving our country, she enrolled at 
Kaplan University.
  Kaplan misled Michele about her GI Bill benefits and persuaded her to 
take out loans to cover tuition. They offered a so-called stipend for 
books and supplies, but it wasn't a stipend. It was additional student 
loans.
  By the time Michele learned the truth, she had $42,654 in student 
debt and no degree.
  The 2016 borrower defense to repayment rule created a process to help 
defrauded borrowers like Michele access student debt relief. Secretary 
DeVos' rewrite guts protections for students and taxpayers in favor of 
shielding bad-acting institutions from accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's CRA so veterans 
like Michele have a fair process.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. 
Res. 76 and in strong opposition to the Department of Education's 
change to the borrower defense rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand in defense of 
defrauded students nationwide from getting relief that they are 
entitled to. This significant step ensures that we hold the 
institutions accountable for their actions by blocking this rule from 
going into effect.
  Allowing this rule to move forward is a dismantling of student 
protections

[[Page H312]]

and would further exacerbate the student loan crisis in our country, 
which is a major crisis for our young people.
  We should not be protecting fraudulent institutions that prey on 
students. We should be working to prevent fraud in education in the 
first place.
  It is vital that defrauded students have a process that is fair and 
easy to understand, and this new guidance makes it substantially more 
difficult for these students to receive the relief that they 
desperately need. Denying debt relief to defrauded students is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to support this bill.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Lee for 
yielding and for her leadership on this critical issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation, 
which reverses actions by Betsy DeVos that would deny debt relief to 
students defrauded by predatory colleges.
  Over recent years, we have seen for-profit colleges like Corinthian 
and ITT Tech collapse, leaving students in my district and across the 
country with crushing debt and none of the job opportunities that they 
were promised.
  These students were defrauded, plain and simple, and they have been 
left holding the bag, thanks to Betsy DeVos' refusal to implement an 
Obama-era rule that provides defrauded students with relief and helps 
them move forward with their lives.
  Instead, DeVos rewrote the rule to make it harder for borrowers to 
get relief, severely restricted how much relief they can receive, and 
shifted the costs of providing debt relief from predatory schools to 
the taxpayers.
  DeVos is putting the interests of predatory for-profit schools above 
students, and it is wrong. We should always put students first, and 
many of them are waiting on Betsy DeVos to do the right thing.
  As of last month, 240,000 defrauded students, including more than 
41,000 students in California, are still waiting for DeVos to take 
action on their claims for debt relief. Many of these students can't 
afford to enroll in another school without the debt relief they are 
owed. They can't move on with their lives because Betsy DeVos is 
dragging her feet. That is simply not fair.
  We must pass this legislation to stop DeVos from making it even 
harder for defrauded students to get the relief they desperately need.
  Ultimately, we must do much more to help stop schools from defrauding 
students and taxpayers in the first place.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this action to overturn 
Secretary DeVos' misguided policy against defrauded students.
  Predatory, for-profit colleges are scamming students and taxpayers 
out of millions of dollars. Secretary DeVos is helping them to get away 
with it.
  I held an oversight hearing in my Committee on Appropriations 
subcommittee, and what did we find? While accounting for only 9 percent 
of all students enrolled in post-secondary education, predatory, for-
profit colleges account for 34 percent of all defaults.
  Under Secretary DeVos' new rule, students may not receive the 
financial relief that they deserve and are entitled to under the 
borrower defense to repayment provision of the Higher Education Act.
  While the Obama administration created a streamlined process to help 
students access the relief, the Trump administration is making it 
nearly impossible.
  Under the Secretary's new rule, if borrowers cannot prove the school 
intentionally defrauded them or if they cannot file their claim fast 
enough or if they cannot document their exact financial harm, they lose 
out. As little as 3 percent of eligible debt will be forgiven now.
  With the Secretary's rule, what little relief there is will likely be 
shouldered by taxpayers, not the schools that are committing the fraud. 
It is wrong.
  In Connecticut, 1,100 defrauded students are waiting to be made 
whole. They need help, not Secretary DeVos' cruel policy.
  We must pass this Congressional Review Act resolution and stop her.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains 
on my side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Nevada has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time 
and would inquire through the Chair if my colleague has any remaining 
speakers on her side.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have no further people to 
testify. We are ready to close.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say again, the Secretary has been faithfully 
executing the law. The problem is that our colleagues don't like the 
law as it is, and so we need to change the law if they don't like what 
the Secretary is executing. However, that is not where we are today.
  Students who have been harmed by fraudulent practices deserve relief, 
period. There is no disagreement on that issue, Mr. Speaker.
  Sadly, President Obama's overzealous and flawed borrower defense 
regulation abandoned due process and limited student choice. So the 
Trump administration acted quickly to reverse this struggling 
regulation.
  In 2019, the Education Department issued a new borrower defense rule 
to better protect borrowers and taxpayers. The rule is the result of 
more than 2 years of deliberations, public hearings, negotiations with 
the higher education stakeholders, and considering, incorporating, and 
responding to public comments on the issues.
  To hear our colleagues speak about it, it is something that came 
straight off of Secretary DeVos' desk. Not true.
  Thanks to this regulatory reset, all colleges and universities will 
be held accountable, defrauded students will see relief, and taxpayer 
dollars will be better protected.
  Today's resolution would repeal the Trump administration's rule and 
go back to Obama regulations that harm students and taxpayers. That is 
unreasonable to think about, that our colleagues want to do that. They 
want to actually harm the students they claim they want to help. 
Students deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided 
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to correct some misinformation 
about the 2016 rule that my colleagues on the other side have stated 
today.
  First of all, the law, the Higher Education Act, entitles borrowers a 
right to relief. This applies to all institutions, not just a few.
  The reason the 2019 rule saves money is because meritorious claims 
will be denied. Under this new rule, students will see only 3 percent 
of their loans discharged, and predatory institutions will pay only 1 
percent of their fraud.
  The 2019 rule sets an impossibly high bar for students to prove 
relief, inconsistent with State law.
  The 2016 rule allowed for arbitration. It just banned predispute 
arbitration and class action waivers.
  The 2016 rule was closely negotiated with institutions, including 
HBCUs, that struck a balance that was fair to institutions and 
students.
  The Department of Education predicts that by 2021 over 200,000 
borrowers will face this type of fraud. This is not about borrowers in 
the past; this is about borrowers moving forward. This number will only 
continue to grow if we don't pass the reforms in the College 
Affordability Act.

[[Page H313]]

  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters: a letter from The 
American Legion; a letter from 20 State attorneys general; and a letter 
from a coalition of groups, including Student Veterans of America, 
supporting our effort to overturn the Secretary's harmful borrower 
defense rule.

                                              The American Legion,


                             Office of the National Commander,

                                Washington, DC, December 18, 2019.
     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: On behalf of the nearly 2 million 
     members of The American Legion, I write to express our 
     support for Joint Resolution 56, providing for congressional 
     disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of 
     Education relating to, ``Borrower Defense Institutional 
     Accountability.'' The rule, as currently written, is 
     fundamentally rigged against defrauded borrowers or student 
     loans, depriving them of the opportunity for debt relief that 
     Congress intended to afford them under the Higher Education 
     Act. Affirming this position is American Legion Resolution 
     No. 82: Preserve Veteran and Servicemember Rights to Gainful 
     Employment and Borrower Defense Protections, adopted in our 
     National Convention 2017.
       Thousands of student veterans have been defrauded over the 
     years--promised their credits would transfer when they 
     wouldn't, given false or misleading job placement rates in 
     marketing, promised one educational experience when they were 
     recruited, but given something completely different. This 
     type of deception against our veterans and servicemembers has 
     been a lucrative scam for unscrupulous actors.
       As veterans are aggressively targeted due to their service 
     to our country, they must be afforded the right to group 
     relief. The Department of Education's ``Borrower Defense'' 
     rule eliminates this right, forcing veterans to individually 
     prove their claim, share the specific type of financial harm 
     they suffered, and prove the school knowingly made 
     substantial misrepresentations. The preponderance of evidence 
     required for this process is so onerous that the Department 
     of Education itself estimated that only 3 percent of 
     applicants would get relief.
       Until every veteran's application for student loan 
     forgiveness has been processed, we will continue to demand 
     fair and timely decisions. The rule that the Department of 
     Education has promulgated flagrantly denies defrauded 
     veterans these dignities, and The American Legion calls on 
     Congress to overturn this regulatory action.
       Senator Durbin, The American Legion applauds your 
     leadership in addressing this critical issue facing our 
     nation's veterans and their families.
           For God & Country,

                                     James W. ``Bill'' Oxford,

     National Commander.
                                  ____

         The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney 
           General,
                          Boston, Massachusetts, January 14, 2020.
     Senator Dick Durbin,
     Washington, DC.
     Representative Susie Lee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin and Representative Lee: We, the 
     undersigned Attorneys General of Massachusetts, California, 
     Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai'i, Illinois, Iowa, 
     Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, 
     New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, 
     Virginia, and Washington write to express our support for the 
     resolution of disapproval that you have introduced regarding 
     the U.S. Department of Education's (``Department'') 2019 
     Borrower Defense Rule (``2019 Rule'') pursuant to the 
     Congressional Review Act. In issuing the 2019 Rule, the 
     Department has abdicated its Congressionally-mandated 
     responsibility to protect students and taxpayers from the 
     misconduct of unscrupulous schools. The rule provides no 
     realistic prospect for borrowers to discharge their loans 
     when they have been defrauded by predatory for-profit 
     schools, and it eliminates financial responsibility 
     requirements for those same institutions. If this rule goes 
     into effect, the result will be disastrous for students while 
     providing a windfall to abusive schools.
       The 2019 Rule squanders and reverses recent progress the 
     Department has made in protecting students from fraud and 
     abuse. Three years ago, the Department completed a thorough 
     rulemaking process addressing borrower defense and financial 
     responsibility, in which the views of numerous schools, 
     stakeholders, and public commenters were considered and 
     incorporated into a comprehensive set of regulations. The 
     regulations, promulgated by the Department in November 2016 
     (``2016 Rule''), made substantial progress toward achieving 
     the Department's then-stated goal of providing defrauded 
     borrowers with a consistent, clear, fair, and transparent 
     process to seek debt relief. At the same time, the 2016 Rule 
     protected taxpayers by holding schools accountable that 
     engage in misconduct and ensuring that financially troubled 
     schools provide the government with protection against the 
     risks they create.
       The Department's new rule would simply rescind and replace 
     its 2016 Rule, reversing all of its enhanced protections for 
     students and its accountability measures for for-profit 
     schools. The Department's 2019 Rule provides an entirely 
     unfair and unworkable process for defrauded students to 
     obtain loan relief and will do nothing to deter and hold 
     accountable schools that cheat their students. Among its 
     numerous flaws, the Department's new rule places 
     insurmountable evidentiary burdens on student borrowers with 
     meritorious claims. The rule requires student borrowers to 
     prove intentional or reckless misconduct on the part of their 
     schools, an extraordinarily demanding standard not consistent 
     with state laws governing liability for unfair and deceptive 
     conduct. Moreover, even where a school has intentionally or 
     recklessly harmed its students, it is difficult to imagine 
     how students would be able to obtain the evidence necessary 
     to prove intent or recklessness for an administrative 
     application to the Department. The rule also inappropriately 
     requires student borrowers to prove financial harm beyond the 
     intrinsic harm caused by incurring federal student loan debt 
     as a result of fraud, and establishes a three-year time bar 
     on borrower defense claims, even though students typically do 
     not learn until years later that they were defrauded by their 
     schools. Compounding these obstacles, the rule arbitrarily 
     eliminates the process by which relief can be sought on a 
     group level, permitting those schools that have committed the 
     most egregious and systemic misconduct to benefit from their 
     wrongdoing at the expense of borrowers with meritorious 
     claims who are unaware of or unable to access relief.
       We are uniquely well-situated to understand the devastating 
     effects that the 2019 Rule would have on the lives of student 
     borrowers and their families. State attorneys general serve 
     an important role in the regulation of private, postsecondary 
     institutions. Our investigations and enforcement actions have 
     repeatedly revealed that numerous for-profit schools have 
     deceived and defrauded students, and employed other unlawful 
     tactics to line their coffers with federal student-loan 
     funds. We have witnessed firsthand the heartbreaking 
     devastation to borrowers and their families. Recently, for 
     example, state attorneys general played a critical role in 
     uncovering widespread misconduct at Career Education 
     Corporation, Education Management Corporation, the Art 
     Institute and Argosy schools operated by the Dream Center, 
     ITT Technical Institute, Corinthian Colleges, American Career 
     Institute and others, and then working with the Department to 
     secure borrower-defense relief for tens of thousands of 
     defrauded students. Though this work, we have spoken with 
     numerous students who, while seeking new opportunities for 
     themselves and their families, were lured into programs with 
     the promise of employment opportunities and higher earnings, 
     only to be left with little to show for their efforts aside 
     from unaffordable debt.
       A robust and fair borrower defense rule is critical for 
     ensuring that student borrowers and taxpayers are not left 
     bearing the costs of institutional misconduct. The 
     Department's new rule instead empowers predatory for-profit 
     schools and cuts off relief to victimized students. During 
     the comment period on the 2019 Rule, we submitted these and 
     other objections to the Department. Rather than engaging with 
     our offices, the Department ignored our comments and left our 
     concerns unaddressed. We commend and support your efforts to 
     disapprove the 2019 Rule to protect students and taxpayers. 
     Congress must hold predatory institutions accountable for 
     their misconduct and provide relief to defrauded student 
     borrowers and, by enacting your resolution of disapproval, 
     ensure that the 2016 Rule remains the operative borrower 
     defense regulation.
           Sincerely,
         Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney General; Kathleen 
           Jennings, Delaware Attorney General; Clare E. Connors, 
           Hawai'i Attorney General; Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney 
           General; Brian E. Frosh, Maryland Attorney General; 
           Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General; Hector 
           Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General; Xavier Becorra, 
           California Attorney General; Karl A. Racine, District 
           of Columbia Attorney General; Kwame Raoul, Illinois 
           Attorney General; Aaron M. Frey, Maine Attorney 
           General; Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General; Gurbir 
           S. Grewal, New Jersey Attorney General; Letitia James, 
           New York Attorney General; Joshua H. Stein, North 
           Carolina Attorney General; Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania 
           Attorney General; Mark R. Herring, Virginia Attorney 
           General; Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; 
           Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Vermont Attorney General; Bob 
           Ferguson, Washington State Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                                 December 9, 2019.
     Senator Dick Durbin,
     Washington, DC.
     Representative Susie Lee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin and Representative Lee: As 57 
     organizations representing and advocating for students, 
     families, taxpayers, veterans and service members, faculty 
     and staff, civil rights and consumers, we write in support of 
     your efforts to disapprove the 2019 Borrower Defense to 
     Repayment rule pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
       The purpose of the borrower defense rule as defined by the 
     Higher Education Act is to protect students and taxpayers 
     from fraud, deception, and other illegal misconduct by 
     unscrupulous colleges. A well-designed rule

[[Page H314]]

     will both provide relief to students who have been lied to 
     and cheated, and deter illegal conduct by colleges.
       However, the final rule issued by the Department of 
     Education on September 23, 2019, would accomplish neither of 
     these goals. An analysis of the Department's own calculations 
     estimates that only 3 percent of the loans that result from 
     school misconduct would be cancelled under the new rule. 
     Schools would be held accountable for reimbursing taxpayers 
     for just 1 percent of these loans.
       The DeVos Borrower Defense rule issued in September imposes 
     unreasonable time limits on student borrowers who have been 
     deceived and misled by their schools. It requires applicants 
     to meet thresholds that make it almost impossible for wronged 
     borrowers to obtain loan cancellation.
       The rule eliminates the ability of groups of borrowers to 
     be granted relief, even in cases where there is substantial 
     compelling evidence of widespread wrongdoing. It prohibits 
     the filing of claims after three years even when evidence of 
     wrongdoing emerges at a later date. It requires borrowers to 
     prove schools intended to deceive them or acted recklessly, 
     although students have no ability to access evidence that 
     might show this intent. And the rule stipulates that student 
     loans taken by students under false pretenses are 
     insufficient evidence of financial harm to allow the loans to 
     be cancelled.
       Additionally, the 2019 rule eliminates the promise of 
     automatic loan relief to eligible students whose school 
     closed before they could graduate. Instead, the Department 
     would force each eligible student impacted by a school 
     closure to individually find out about their statutory right 
     to relief, apply, and navigate the government's bureaucracy 
     to have their loans cancelled.
       Many of us wrote to the Department in August 2018 in 
     response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and offered 
     carefully considered recommendations. However, the Department 
     rejected our recommendations that would have provided a fair 
     process that protects students and taxpayer dollars. Instead, 
     the new rule would do little to provide relief to students 
     who have been lied to, and even less to dissuade colleges 
     from systematically engaging in deceptive and illegal 
     recruitment tactics. Moreover, a borrower defense rule that 
     fails to adequately protect students harms the most 
     vulnerable students, including first-generation college 
     students, Black and Latino students, and military-connected 
     students, who are targeted by and disproportionately enroll 
     in predatory for-profit colleges.
       Meanwhile, the Department refuses to take action on a 
     massive backlog of over 200,000 pending borrower defense 
     claims, having failed to approve or deny a single claim in 
     over a year. We fully support your effort to repeal the 2019 
     borrower defense rule, and look forward to restoration of the 
     2016 rule, which took major steps to provide a path to loan 
     forgiveness for the hundreds of thousands of students who 
     attended schools where misconduct has already been well 
     documented.
           Signed,
       AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Allied Progress, American Association of 
     University Professors, American Federation of Teachers, 
     Americans for Financial Reform, Association of Young 
     Americans (AYA), Campaign for America's Future, Center for 
     Public Interest Law, Center for Responsible Lending, 
     Children's Advocacy Institute, CLASP, Clearinghouse on 
     Women's Issues, Consumer Action, Consumer Advocacy and 
     Protection Society (CAPS) at Berkeley Law, Consumer 
     Federation of America, Consumer Federal of California.
       Demos, Duke Consumer Rights Project, East Bay Community Law 
     Center, Economic Mobility Pathways (EMPath), The Education 
     Trust, Empire Justice Center, Feminist Majority Foundation, 
     Government Accountability Project, Higher Education Loan 
     Coalition (HELC), Hildreth Institute, Housing and Economic 
     Rights Advocates, The Institute for College Access & Success 
     (TICAS), Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, NAACP, National 
     Association for College Admission Counseling.
       National Association of Consumer Advocates, National 
     Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA), 
     National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income 
     clients), National Education Association, National Urban 
     League, New America Higher Education Program, New Jersey 
     Citizen Action, One Wisconsin Now, PHENOM (Public Higher 
     Education Network of Massachusetts), Project on Predatory 
     Student Lending, Public Citizen, Public Counsel.
       Public Good Law Center, Public Law Center, Service 
     Employees International Union (SEIU), Southeast Asia Resource 
     Action Center (SEARAC), Student Debt Crisis, Student Defense, 
     Student Veterans of America, Third Way, U.S. Public Interest 
     Research Group (PIRG), UnidosUS, Veterans Education Success, 
     Veterans for Common Sense, Young Invincibles.

  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. 
Res. 76 and to reject Secretary DeVos' harmful rule that makes it 
nearly impossible for borrowers to seek the relief that they have the 
right to seek.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
resolution disapproving the Administration's new ``Borrowers Defense to 
Repayment'' rule. This proposed rule would make it more difficult for 
defrauded students in my district to seek relief from their student 
loan obligations.
  Over the past few years, we have seen large for-profit colleges close 
shop, leaving students with significant amounts of student debt and 
useless degrees. These closures included multiple campuses in North 
Texas, thus impacting thousands of students across the state. These 
students were falsely promised a better life if they obtained a degree 
from these institutions. However, because of these closures, students 
were worse off financially.
  The Obama Administration proposed rules that would streamline the 
process for students to get discharged from their student loan 
obligations and be able to move on with their lives. Unfortunately, 
these rules were unable to go into effect due to Secretary DeVos's 
unlawful refusal to implement the Obama-era rule. Instead, Secretary 
DeVos has worked tirelessly to make the process for students seeking 
relief more burdensome.
  The new Borrower's Defense rule makes it harder for borrowers to seek 
the relief they desperately need so that they can move on with their 
lives. The new rule drastically shortens the application period for 
borrowers to apply for relief, raises the bar that borrowers have to 
prove that an institution defrauded them, and allows instructions to 
access the evidence provided the borrower so that they have an 
advantage when attempting to undermine these claims.
  Simply put, Secretary DeVos' Borrowers Defense rule rigs the game in 
favor of fraudulent institutions while making life much more difficult 
for those students that were ripped off. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution so that we may use our 
Congressional Review Act authority to stop this rule before it ruins 
the livelihood of any more students.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 790, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. 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, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the joint resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on:
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 180, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               YEAS--231

     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.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     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
     Katko
     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)

[[Page H315]]


     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     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 (NJ)
     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
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young

                               NAYS--180

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     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
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     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)
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     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
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bishop (UT)
     Byrne
     Clay
     Cook
     Crawford
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Holding
     Kirkpatrick
     Lesko
     Lewis
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     McClintock
     Pascrell
     Roy
     Spano
     Walker

                              {time}  1057

  Mr. GAETZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record that on 
January 16, 2020, I missed one roll call vote. Had I been present, I 
would have voted: yea on rollcall Vote 22, H.J. Res. 76.
  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. 22.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I missed one vote on January 16, 2020. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 22.

                          ____________________