[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.
____________________