[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 118 (Friday, June 26, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H2548-H2555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION RELATING TO ``BORROWER DEFENSE INSTITUTIONAL
ACCOUNTABILITY''--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Neguse). Pursuant to the order of the
House of June 18, 2020, the unfinished business is the further
consideration of the veto message of the President on 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''.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
(For veto message, see proceedings of the House of June 1, 2020, at
page H2362.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the President's veto of
H.J. Res. 76, a bipartisan Congressional Review Act resolution that
would stop the Department of Education's harmful borrower defense rule
from going into effect.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize the hard work of the
gentlewoman from Nevada, Representative Susie Lee, for her tireless
efforts in protecting students, particularly student veterans, from
predatory schools.
{time} 1145
Borrower defense is a valuable tool to provide relief to student
borrowers who are defrauded by predatory institutions. Unfortunately,
instead of using the Department's authority to make borrowers whole and
give students a second chance at a quality education, it has gone out
of its way to prevent victims of fraud from getting relief.
The Department's rewrite of the borrower defense rule, which is set
to go into effect on July 1, will mean that a vast majority of
defrauded student borrowers will get virtually no relief. Even in cases
where a school clearly violates the law, defrauded victims can still be
denied relief under the rule if they can't show that the school
intentionally defrauded them or they can't file their claim fast enough
or they can't document, according to the flawed Department methodology,
exactly how much harm they suffered due to fraud.
Even those student borrowers who do receive partial relief will
receive significantly less relief than before. Under Secretary DeVos,
the average loan discharge amount for approved borrowers has dropped
from about $11,000 to about $500, and for many students zero relief
will be available even though they can prove massive fraud.
Class actions are not allowed under the rule. Each student must bring
an individual case even though the school may have been found to have
been guilty of egregious systemic fraud.
Democrats and Republicans came together earlier this year to pass a
Congressional Review Act resolution that rejects this rule and prevents
the Department of Education from denying borrowers the relief they
deserve. A broad coalition, including veterans and military groups,
consumer advocates, student advocates, and civil rights groups, called
on the President to sign the congressional resolution and protect
student borrowers from predatory schools; but, while the President
initially indicated support for the resolution, he ultimately chose to
veto it.
Today the House has one final opportunity to ensure that defrauded
students get the relief they deserve by overriding that veto.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's
veto.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who is the ranking member, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume, and I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.J. Res. 76, a resolution
that would overturn the Education Department's effort to assist
students who
[[Page H2549]]
have been defrauded by colleges and universities while also taking
necessary precautions to protect taxpayer interests.
Democrats have resorted to political finger-pointing on this issue at
every turn. First, Education and Labor Committee Democrats held a
hearing at the end of last year to hurl unfounded and personal attacks
at Secretary DeVos. Then they passed H.J. Res. 76 shortly after to
overturn the Education Department's borrower defense rules; and now,
after President Trump has vetoed this resolution, the Democrats still
can't take no for an answer and want to override the President's veto.
As we stand here today--yet again--to watch the Democrats' political
games unfold, I would like to begin by highlighting real priorities we
are letting fall by the wayside as we waste time debating this partisan
resolution.
For starters, we should be working on bipartisan solutions to combat
the devastating effects of the coronavirus. We should be addressing the
concerns of small businesses--the backbone of our economy--and the
workers whose livelihoods are being impacted by this crisis.
Or we could address labor union shortcomings, including the
widespread and brazen corruption amongst United Auto Worker, UAW, union
leadership. We know the UAW senior union leaders engaged in money
laundering, tax fraud, bribery, and embezzlement, yet no action has
been taken to examine this abuse of power by union bosses.
Unfortunately, Democrats have a long track record of pursuing
ideological objectives at the expense of taxpayers, students, and
schools. Today is no different, so I would like to spend some time
touching upon the advantages of the Trump administration's new rule and
providing context on the Obama-era borrower defense rule and its many
shortcomings.
The borrower defense rule was first released by the Education
Department in 1994. Borrowers rarely used this process over the next 20
years, until 2015, when a large for-profit school closed. During the
final stretch of his Presidency, the Obama administration used this
school closure as an opportunity to issue new regulations on borrower
defense.
The caveat? A potential $42 billion price tag to be footed by
taxpayers that encouraged tens of thousands of borrowers, whether they
were harmed or not, to apply to have their loans forgiven. In fact,
claim filings for loan forgiveness went from 59 submitted in the first
20 years to roughly 300,000 claims submitted in the last 5 years.
Let me repeat that.
For the first 20 years of the rule, there were 59 claims. Then the
Obama administration begins encouraging frivolous appeals, and the
appeals jumped to 300,000 and climbing.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. Massive loan forgiveness has long
been a Democrat objective, and the Obama rule was a giant leap toward
that goal--one that also ignored the high cost to taxpayers.
Furthermore, the Obama administration's regulations were convoluted,
blurring the line between fraud and inadvertent mistakes made by
schools. The distinction between the two is important because, if
institutions are found to engage in fraud, the Education Department can
cause schools to close--despite no intentional wrongdoing--through
significant financial penalties.
But don't just take my word for it. Colleges and universities,
including historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs, voiced
concerns about the Obama regulation. Postsecondary education leaders
believed what President Obama's administration proposed could ruin
those colleges and universities that did not have large endowments or
significant revenue streams like the Ivy League institutions. The Obama
rule could shutter the very institutions designed and dedicated to
serving low-income, minority, and first-generation students.
Additionally, The Washington Times pointed out: ``Under the Obama
rule, students in the coronavirus era who could not attend classes on
campus and were forced to take makeshift Zoom classes would have
legitimate claims against their schools because the Obama rule does not
differentiate between willful misrepresentation and schools' varied
responses to the coronavirus. Great for trial lawyers, but bad for
students and their schools.''
The Obama regulations created more chaos than clarity, and the Trump
administration recognized immediately the need to right these wrongs.
So, working with the Education Department, President Trump produced a
rule with clearer standards for borrower defense and increased
transparency for both students and institutions.
The rule, first and foremost, holds all schools accountable. Students
who have been lied to and suffered financial harm are entitled to
relief and forgiveness.
Let me repeat that. The Trump administration's borrower defense rule
delivers relief to students, including veterans, who have been lied to
and suffered financial harm.
In fact, the Obama rule undermined the ability of veterans to earn
relief if the institution was considered an elite liberal arts
institution. In contrast, President Trump's rule makes sure students
have the last word no matter what institution they attend.
Democrats will have you believe that the President and Secretary
DeVos want to intentionally harm students who have been defrauded by an
institution of higher education, and that is simply not the case.
While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to
spend taxpayer money recklessly, President Trump's rule actually
reduces the cost of the 2016 Obama-era regulations by $11 billion
because it helps students go to and complete their education rather
than closing schools indiscriminately. This is an $11 billion savings
for American taxpayers during a time when many are struggling to make
ends meet.
Additionally, the Trump borrower defense rule holds all institutions,
not just for-profit colleges, accountable for misrepresentations
instead of picking winners and losers at considerable cost to
taxpayers. It 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 such as cash payments or other expenses
not provided by the Education Department.
Furthermore, this rule is the result of more than 2 years of
deliberations, public hearings, and negotiations with higher education
stakeholders, as well as considering, incorporating, and responding to
public comments on this issue.
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.
Republicans stand ready to provide relief to students who have been
harmed by fraud, and the borrower defense rule issued by the Trump
administration delivers on that front.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Mrs. Lee), who is the sponsor of the
resolution and a hardworking member of the Committee on Education and
Labor.
Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to join
me in overriding the Presidential veto of H.J. Res. 76.
Last night, we took a historic vote for racial justice, the Justice
in Policing Act. Time and again, Congress takes votes, votes like this
one that will soon be forgotten in the media, but these are the votes
that quietly perpetuate the systemic inequality and racism in our
country. That is what this vote today is about.
Communities of color, minority and low-income students, and veterans
are preyed upon by predatory for-profit schools. They are manipulated.
They are lied to and they are defrauded.
Because we, the Federal Government, did not do enough to prevent that
fraud, we established the borrower defense rule as part of the Higher
Education Act as a way to give these students a path to justice and
relief. But the Department of Education not only rewrote that rule
to make justice for our students virtually impossible, it is also
failing to hold these predatory schools accountable for their actions.
Time and time again, we tell young students in this country education
is
[[Page H2550]]
the answer, and they believe us. But that system failed them. The
system failed my constituent, Kendrick Harrison, a brave Iraq war
veteran, a father, and a Black American.
Kendrick and his family were left homeless after his for-profit
school blew through his GI benefits and convinced him to take out
$16,000 in debt right before shutting their doors. He is fighting to
this day and working as hard as anyone to get his life back on track.
I promise this story is not an exception. There are over 350,000
students just in recent years who were lied to, manipulated, and
defrauded by predatory schools.
So I ask my colleagues: Are you going to stand with these students?
Are you going to stand with the system that perpetuates inequality and
holds down brave Americans like Kendrick? Are you going to let these
for-profit schools wreak havoc on the lives of these students and take
advantage of American taxpayers?
Because it is us, American taxpayers, who foot the bill for these bad
actor schools because the Department of Education refuses to hold them
accountable.
I am ready to take a stand against this broken policy, and I need you
to stand with me. Take a stand for the very communities who have been
rising up in this country.
These protests over the last several weeks are about police
brutality, but they are about so much more. They are about decisions
that we make in this body that perpetuate inequality and continue to
stack the deck against Black Americans, student veterans, students in
poverty, and working people who are just trying to better themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's
veto. It is time to take a stand.
{time} 1200
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank our education
Republican leader for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the veto override of H.J. Res.
76.
The Department of Education first released borrower defense rules in
1994, which were rarely used over the next 20 years. After a large for-
profit school closed in 2015, the Obama administration used this
opportunity to issue new regulations on borrower defense. These
regulations could cost the American taxpayer more than $40 billion and
encourage tens of thousands of borrowers--whether they were harmed or
not--to apply to have their loans forgiven. The 2016 Obama regulations
created more chaos than clarity and set massive loan forgiveness of a
loan, regardless of the cost to taxpayers.
However, in 2019, the Trump administration issued that new borrower
defense rule, which takes effect July 1. The new rule creates clear,
consistent standards and procedures for borrowers who have suffered
financial harm due to a misrepresentation by a school.
Specifically, the rule:
Ensures due process for all parties;
Holds all institutions--not just for-profits--accountable for
misrepresentations;
It delivers relief to students, including veterans, who have been
lied to and suffered financial harm;
It preserves student choice, including student veterans in
institutions that best suit their educational needs;
And it saves taxpayers $11 billion by incentivizing students to
finish their education rather than indiscriminately closing schools.
H.J. Res. 76 would undermine the repeal of the Trump administration's
borrower defense rule and go back to Obama regulations that harm
students and taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
measure.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the chair of the Subcommittee
on Higher Education and Workforce Investment.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, there are 240,000 defrauded
students waiting for student loan relief. Over 40,000 of those students
are from my home State of California.
After doing nothing for students who have been defrauded by predatory
colleges, the Department has come out with a new borrower defense rule
that only makes things worse--in several ways--under the guise of
protecting the taxpayer from footing the bill. But we have to remember,
our students are taxpayers, too.
This new rule clearly gives preference to the very colleges causing
the harm from the borrower defense rule that it was intended to
prevent. If a school closes before delivering on its promises to
students, they should have automatic discharge of their loans to that
institution. Students who have spent years bettering themselves working
to get into jobs, sacrificing in the hope of improving financial
conditions for their families are being told that they simply don't
matter.
Colleges, on the other hand, can use this system to keep taking money
and they don't have to deliver what they promise. Our students deserve
protection from predatory practices.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is the first step toward
blocking the new fraud borrower defense rule from taking support, and I
urge its support.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller), another great member of the
committee.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the attempted
veto override of H.J. Res. 76.
When this legislation was advanced through this Chamber in January,
the majority sought 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, in this legislation was marked by regulatory chaos,
excessive punishments, and ridiculous costs. The Obama rule provided no
clarity and sought to forgive student loans at a massive scale,
regardless of the cost to taxpayers or merits of the borrower's case.
Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the Obama-era regulations did not
distinguish between deliberate fraud and unintentional errors made by
schools, which is critical because the Department can levy substantial
financial penalties against institutions found to engage in fraud,
which can cause a school to close despite no intentional wrongdoing,
thus ending access to alternative avenues for higher education for some
current and prospective students.
Estimates put the total cost of the Obama Loan Forgiveness giveaway
as high as $40 billion. That is why in 2019, the Trump administration
issued the new Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability Rule. The
new rule, which takes effect on July 1, provides regulatory clarity;
affords due process to both students and institutions; provides
students relief relative 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 institutional level arbitration. Importantly,
the 2019 rule is estimated to save taxpayers $11 billion from the 2016
Obama-rule baseline.
Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to return to the outdated,
costly, and confusing Obama-era rule. I also urge a ``no'' vote,
because with respect to this issue, Congress should stay in its lane.
The Trump administration was rightly using its authority to implement
the laws promulgating the new Borrower Defense Institutional
Accountability Rule. They did so at a substantial savings to the
taxpayer, while protecting student borrowers and holding bad actors
accountable.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Education and Labor.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, right before
Memorial Day, President Trump very quietly, behind closed doors, vetoed
this bill, a bill that protects a borrower defense rule, which was
supported by a wide range of veteran service organizations.
For years, young veterans who sought an education after serving their
country have been targeted by for-profit, rip-off education factories
that swallow up their GI benefits and then pile on new student loans.
[[Page H2551]]
Stories abound about men and women who wore the uniform of this
country left with crushing debt and worthless degrees that denied them
the rewarding careers they were promised. Although many today are
entitled to loan forgiveness, the Department of Education, under
Secretary Betsy DeVos, has willfully made this process as onerous as
possible.
Mr. Speaker, if we listen to the American Legion, the Iraq and Afghan
Veterans of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, vote to
override, and we can restore these victims of fraud and greed some
semblance of financial solvency. If we do not override this veto, the
share of eligible debt forgiveness will drop from 53 percent to just 3
percent, and we will betray thousands of Americans who stepped up and
volunteered to protect our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to override.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that
my colleague would say the President ``very quietly and behind closed
doors'' vetoed a bill. They issued a statement on it almost
immediately, so it wasn't exactly quietly. Generally, they have to veto
a bill at a desk with people present.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to
overriding President Trump's veto.
We can all agree that no student should be intentionally misled and
schools engaging in fraudulent misrepresentation must be held
accountable. But the Obama-era borrower defense regulations lack
clarity, and simply, did not function. The 2016 regulations did not
make the critical distinction between fraud and unintentional mistakes
made by schools.
Mr. Speaker, under the rule, the Department of Education can impose
significant financial penalties on institutions found to engage in
fraud. But with no distinction, this can cause a school to have to
close despite no intentional wrongdoing, hurting students on their path
to a higher education. That is why President Trump took decisive action
and created the 2019 borrower defense rule to clear this up.
Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration's solution delivers relief to
students, including veterans, who have been lied to and suffered
financial harm. It would also save taxpayers $11 billion by helping
students complete their education, rather than indiscriminately closing
schools. The Trump rule will ensure due process for all parties, while
also ensuring institutions engaging in fraudulent misrepresentation are
held accountable.
Mr. Speaker, when Democrats originally brought forward a resolution
to disapprove this new commonsense rule, I voted ``no,'' and I will
vote ``no'' again today.
I thank President Trump for rightfully using his veto authority,
because we cannot go back to the Obama-era regulations that hurt
students and taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure today.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee
on Civil Rights and Human Services.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J.
Res. 76, the veto override.
The Obama administration wrote the original borrower defense rule to
provide defrauded students with the debt relief they are entitled to
under the Higher Education Act.
Rather than protect students, however, DeVos rewrote the rule to make
it nearly impossible for students who are victimized by deceptive
institutions to get the relief they deserve. That is not justice.
Mr. Speaker, five months ago, I urged my colleagues to support the
resolution to reverse Secretary DeVos' harmful new borrower defense
rule. I was glad it passed with bipartisan support.
We are here today because the President has chosen to veto the
resolution and stand with Secretary DeVos and unscrupulous institutions
that cheated students. This is indefensible.
Mr. Speaker, we are in a challenging time for our country, but this
should not be hard. Let's stand with the victims of deception, the
students we represent across the country, not with unscrupulous
institutions, not with Secretary DeVos, and not with Donald Trump.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join together and override this
veto.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe).
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the resolution.
As a ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have
heard a lot of misinformation about the Department of Education's
borrower defense rule and its effects on student veterans.
Here is the truth: The rule does not limit the rights or benefits
provided for veterans in the GI bill or servicemembers who use the
Department of Defense's Tuition Assistance Program, or the TAP program.
Any veteran or servicemember who is defrauded by an institution and
took out Federal loans, will have the opportunity to have that claim
fairly adjudicated, just like any other student would under the rule.
When I was chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in 2017, I
offered the Forever GI bill to make more veterans eligible to receive a
GI bill benefit and make veterans eligible to receive this valuable
benefit for life.
Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago, this Army veteran, when he left the Army,
used the GI bill. I know how valuable it is, personally, Mr. Speaker.
It helped me and my family tremendously, and that is why we wanted to
make this benefit a lifetime benefit.
Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, this Congress passed two bills to
protect student veterans whose GI bill benefits were impacted by the
coronavirus pandemic. My record has shown that one of my top priorities
is ensuring veterans can receive a quality education, and a large part
of that is ensuring that they receive the education they were promised
and holding schools accountable for fraud.
Mr. Speaker, the Department's rule does just that. And it sets up a
clear process for borrowers to have their claim adjudicated and hold
institutions of all types accountable. This rule is fair to borrowers.
It is fair to schools. It is fair to taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I support the President's veto.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a member of the Committee on
Education and Labor, but more importantly, chair of the full Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, because so many veterans have been implicated by
fraud on these institutions.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, so when the Trump administration and Secretary DeVos
approved its new borrower defense to repayment rule late last year, it
was clear that they had chosen to pander to the for-profit college
industry and cheat thousands of borrowers out of the relief that they
deserve.
Predatory for-profit institutions consistently put their profits over
students' education. They make false promises about job prospects,
drain Federal resources, and leave millions of students with useless
degrees and high student loan debt.
Mr. Speaker, yes, veterans are among that group of people, and that
is why major veteran service organizations have come out in favor of
this veto override in support of the original legislation. Veterans,
women, and minorities are aggressively recruited by these institutions
who only see them as a benefit to their bottom line:
ITT Technical Institute, Corinthian Colleges, Dream Center Colleges
are just some of the predatory for-profits whose lofty promises turned
student dreams into a nightmare. The student borrowers who were
defrauded by these schools are desperately seeking relief, but
Secretary DeVos is making that task nearly impossible. And that is why
this year, both Chambers of Congress passed a bipartisan Congressional
Review Act resolution that rejected Secretary DeVos' harmful rule.
Students, consumer advocates, and student veteran groups spoke out in
favor of this CRA and urged President Trump to sign it into law. But
the President refused to heed their call, choosing instead to uphold
Secretary DeVos' watered-down rule to put additional burdens on
borrowers.
[[Page H2552]]
{time} 1215
We must override the President's veto. Congress must again stand with
student loan borrowers and stop the Trump administration's attack on
America's students and his attempts to rig the rule in favor of
Secretary DeVos' cronies. More than 200,000 student borrowers are still
waiting for relief.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
today's attempt to override the President's veto.
I think all of us agree that it is important to offer borrowers a
process to discharge loans when they have been defrauded by a school,
and that is what the rule, crafted with significant stakeholder input,
offers. That was the original intent of the borrower defense process
when it was enacted in 1995.
However, in 2016, as we have heard, the Obama administration used
this process to advance an ideological loan forgiveness scheme, and it
worked as they intended. We went from fewer than 60 claims over 20
years to nearly 330,000 claims in 4 years, which would cost the
hardworking taxpayers, if you had to pay this price, $40 billion. And
they will have to pay that price.
Now, I don't need to go into reasons why that 2016 Obama rule was
flawed. Instead, I will highlight some of the improvements made under
the new rule.
This rule strengthens protections for borrowers from fraud and
applies the same accountability metrics to all institutions across the
board.
The rule provides due process for students and institutions but,
rightfully, gives students the last word. The rule keeps the standard
of evidence the same as the one used by the Obama administration, by
the way, and thanks to stakeholder feedback, the rule does not require
borrowers to prove intent.
Another point, this new rule will only apply to new claims for loans
taken out after July 1.
I do want to thank Secretary DeVos and all of the hardworking
individuals at the Department of Education for working through the
caseload under the Obama standard. Your hard work of processing more
than 5,000 cases per week for borrowers seeking relief has not gone
unnoticed.
A vote against this veto override is a vote in favor of creating a
system that is fairer for students and taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the chair of the Workforce
Protections Subcommittee and also chair of the HBCU Caucus.
Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure to override
the President's veto and to stand up for our Nation's 20 million
college students.
Secretary DeVos' rule would harm tens of thousands of college
students and would allow bad actors to continue some of the worst
practices, such as forcing students to sign pre-arbitration agreements
that limit their rights. We cannot allow predatory institutions to
steal the dream of a college degree from any child.
It is shameful that in his veto message, President Trump used
historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs, as cover for his
pro-fraud, anti-student agenda.
Now, let's be clear. No HBCU has ever been implicated in a borrower
defense claim, and no HBCU has voiced support for Secretary DeVos'
rule. That is fake news.
It is time that President Trump and Secretary DeVos began standing up
for North Carolinians seeking opportunity instead of lying down to our
Nation's worst institutions. And if they won't do it, Congress will.
It is a fundamental right. Du Bois told us: ``Of all of the civil
rights for which the world has struggled and fought . . . the right to
learn is . . . the most fundamental.''
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to overriding
President Trump's veto of H.J. Res. 76.
Everyone in this Chamber can agree that schools that commit fraud and
take advantage of students must be held accountable. However, returning
to the 2016 borrower defense rule put in place by the Obama
administration is not the answer.
Put simply, the Obama-era rule sends millions of taxpayer dollars to
those who were not harmed by their university. Under the Obama-era
rule, the standard to define fraud was placed so low that the
Department of Education saw about 300,000 relief applications in just 5
years. Compare that to the just 59 applications in the previous 20
years the borrower defense process has been in place.
Understanding this problem, the Trump administration released an
updated borrower defense rule in 2019 to prevent fraud, ensure taxpayer
dollars are spent responsibly, and cut the regulatory red tape that has
made it difficult for students and educational institutions to
understand the old rule.
The new rule also ensures that due process, a founding principle of
our Nation, is in place for both students and institutions.
The cost of allowing the Obama rule to stand is great, over 40
billion taxpayer dollars. Thankfully, the changes made by the Trump
administration will save taxpayers billions while still ensuring that
students are protected from fraud.
The Trump administration rule applies relief where it is needed,
unlike the overly broad Obama-era rule. This should be something both
parties can support.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that students who are defrauded by
educational institutions deserve debt relief, but the Obama-era rule is
not the answer.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and sustain the President's veto.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a distinguished member of
the Committee on Education and Labor.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, the American people do not support Betsy
DeVos.
We don't support her radical attempts to privatize education.
We don't support her corrupt efforts to take coronavirus relief away
from public schools so that it can be sent to private ones.
We don't support her hateful, transphobic agenda or her attacks on
survivors of sexual assault.
And we do not support her putting predatory, for-profit colleges over
those they cheated with a rule that would force the most vulnerable
students who were robbed to repay 97 percent of what they borrowed.
That is why Congress passed H.J. Res. 76, with bipartisan support.
But just as Vice President Pence had to save Betsy DeVos' Senate
confirmation, President Trump is trying to save her dangerous rule
against our bipartisan bill.
So I urge my colleagues to override this veto, and, once again, let's
make clear that the people's House stands on the side of the people and
not Betsy DeVos.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Watkins).
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this costly
resolution that would allow more fraud, waste, and abuse.
No one condones fraud, especially when it is perpetrated by an
institute of higher learning. Every student who is financially
defrauded is entitled to relief and forgiveness, period. But we should
make sure that we are helping those who have been defrauded. It is our
job to do due diligence for the American taxpayer.
The Trump administration has made this a priority, unlike the Obama
administration. They used the rule to forgive as many student loans as
they could. They would even target institutions they didn't like. That
is partisan. It is costly to the taxpayer, and it is harmful to the
student. That is why I support Secretary DeVos and President Trump.
Their borrower defense rule takes taxpayers into account.
After seeing the enormous price tag of $42 billion that the Obama
rule created, President Trump and Secretary DeVos acted swiftly to take
that burden off the backs of the taxpayers. I thank the President and
Secretary DeVos.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman
[[Page H2553]]
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), a distinguished member of the Committee
on Education and Labor.
Ms. WILD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 76.
Students defrauded by predatory, for-profit colleges can be left with
crushing debt, useless degrees, and none of the job opportunities they
were promised.
Secretary DeVos could provide immediate relief to students who were
defrauded. Instead, she has halted student loan relief and written a
new rule under which defrauded borrowers could be denied debt relief,
even when predatory colleges clearly violated the law.
Earlier this year, bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate
voted together to reject that rule, but President Trump has vetoed our
legislation--yet another of his actions that will hurt students and
taxpayers.
More than 7,000 Pennsylvanians are suffering while their applications
for financial relief are sitting in limbo at the Department of
Education. If Congress does not override the President's veto, student
borrowers will be harmed, and predatory colleges will receive another
giveaway.
I am proud to stand with students and to vote to override the
President's veto of H.J. Res. 76.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, yet again, to urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's vote to override the President's
veto of H.J. Res. 76.
It is unconscionable that any institution of higher education would
engage in fraudulent misrepresentation to prey on student loan
borrowers, particularly veterans who are able to qualify for GI
benefits to attend schools.
President Trump's commonsense rule would help students who were
defrauded and suffered financial harm by any school, giving them the
opportunity to individually make their case, ensuring due process for
all parties. It would also save taxpayers $11 billion, compared to
President Obama's last-minute, one-size-fits-all rule that did not hold
schools accountable.
As a member of the Education and Labor Committee and the former
chairman of the Higher Education Subcommittee, I strongly urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' today.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Harder), a distinguished member of the Committee
on Education and Labor.
Mr. HARDER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my
colleagues to vote to protect my constituents who were scammed by for-
profit colleges.
Both the House and the Senate took bipartisan votes to protect these
students, but the President overruled our votes, siding with Secretary
DeVos and her billionaire donors.
This issue hits home for me. I met a woman named Artemisa, who
attended a corrupt college in my district. She studied to be a nurse
and graduated with $40,000 in debt, but no one would hire her. She is
still paying off that debt to this day.
And it is not just Artemisa. Thousands of students at scam colleges
across the country have similar stories. And if Secretary DeVos' new
plan isn't stopped, these student borrowers may never get the justice
they deserve.
That is not what we do in this country.
If Secretary DeVos is concerned about cost, she should talk to her
billionaire friends in the corrupt college industry. The criminals
should not be putting the financial burden on the victims of this
fraud.
I encourage everyone to vote to overturn the President's veto.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters), the chair of the Committee on Financial
Services.
{time} 1230
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for yielding to me on
this important issue.
I rise to override the President's veto of H.J. Res. 76, which undoes
a Secretary DeVos rule that would make it nearly impossible for
veterans and student borrowers defrauded by their schools to obtain
financial relief.
Congress voted, on a bipartisan basis, to reject Secretary DeVos'
borrower defense rule, which only cancels 3 percent of the student
loans resulting from school misconduct, keeping 97 percent of our
veterans and student borrowers drowning in debt they only incurred due
to fraud and from which they may never recover.
If Secretary DeVos' efforts to prioritize profit over education are
allowed to stand, then the for-profit industry will continue to do what
it always has: exploit veterans, student borrowers, and those trying to
better their lives and support their families by obtaining an
education.
This is a fight with which I am deeply familiar. This Congress, the
House Financial Services Committee held two hearings examining the
student loan crisis and approved three bills that will provide strong
student borrower protections, including for those harmed by for-profit
colleges. And during this COVID-19 crisis, I have fought to provide up
to $10,000 of relief for private student loan borrowers, and I continue
to fight to protect student loan borrowers who should not have to deal
with debt collections, negative credit reporting, late fees, and
penalties while dealing with this pandemic.
With over 200,000 pending borrower defense applications for loan
relief, these students desperately need and deserve our help.
I urge my colleagues to support veterans and student borrowers by
overriding the President's veto of H.J. Res. 76.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chair of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
to support this override.
Predatory for-profit colleges scam students and taxpayers out of
millions of dollars. Predatory for-profit colleges account for 9
percent of students in postsecondary education but 33 percent of
defaults.
To help students, the Department of Education under the Obama
administration created a streamlined resolution process under the
borrower defense to repayment provision of the Higher Education Act.
Now, Secretary DeVos is breaking the process.
I will tell you what her goal is. It is to aid the perpetrators, not
to help the victims. Under her new rule, borrowers lose out. They lose
out if they cannot prove the school intentionally defrauded them, if
they cannot file their claim fast enough, or if they cannot document
their exact financial harm.
As a result, as little as 3 percent of eligible debt will be forgiven
now. What little relief there is now will likely be shouldered by
taxpayers, not the schools committing the fraud.
Stopping the Secretary as we are pushing to do has wide support: 20
State attorneys general and nearly 60 advocacy groups for students,
civil rights, and education. The American Legion has said: ``Deception
against our veterans and servicemembers has been a lucrative scam for
unscrupulous actors.''
So I say to my Republican colleagues who want to support the
military: Support this override.
And to those of us who want to fight for racial and economic justice:
Support this override.
In 2018, we wrote to the Secretary, alarmed about how this rule could
hurt students of color: ``Ninety-five percent of Black students
attending a for-profit college took out student loans, and a staggering
75 percent of Black students who did not complete their programs
defaulted.''
We must act now for veterans, for students of color, for borrowers
across this country. In Connecticut, 1,100 defrauded students are
waiting to be made whole. They need this override, not that cruel
policy. Vote to override.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman
from Rhode Island, I would like to remind
[[Page H2554]]
our colleagues that just yesterday a Federal court ruled that the
Department of Education must provide full relief for 7,200 defrauded
Massachusetts student borrowers who attended Corinthian Colleges.
Unfortunately, there are still borrowers around the country still
waiting for relief.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Cicilline), a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
rise in strong support of the resolution to override the President's
veto.
In 2016, the Obama administration issued the borrower defense rule in
order to provide relief to student borrowers defrauded by predatory
for-profit institutions, which promised an education and credentials to
pursue a career only to find these credentials did not have the value
they were promised.
In the aftermath of the collapse of institutions like Corinthian
Colleges and ITT Technical Institute, the Obama administration sought
to provide relief to those students left out in the cold.
The borrower defense rule provided a path to relief to those students
who sought to receive an education but were instead left with nothing
but debt and few paths forward.
Sadly and predictably, the Trump administration ended these
protections and implemented a rule making it harder to obtain relief,
siding with predatory for-profit institutions rather than the victims--
the students and veterans--of these wrongdoers.
According to the Institute for College Access and Success, the number
of students eligible to seek debt relief or loan forgiveness will drop
from 53 percent of borrowers under the Obama-era rule to just 3 percent
under the Trump rule.
In response, Congress, in a bipartisan way, came together to reject
the administration's rule change, rejecting efforts to leave defrauded
students out in the cold. The President vetoed this relief. Now,
Congress must once again stand on the side of those who sought to
obtain a higher education and provide a better life for their lives and
family.
I urge adoption of the override resolution.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter), a member of the Financial
Services and Oversight and Reform Committees.
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Under the Higher Education Act, students who are defrauded by private
predatory colleges are entitled to relief on their loans. The prior
administration created a streamlined process to help defrauded
borrowers access relief and move forward with their lives.
Secretary DeVos tried to strip those protections away, but we fought
back. Some of my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate voted
with us to overturn Secretary Betsy DeVos' new rule. We came together
to defend students and to stand up against fraud, waste, and abuse.
But President Trump vetoed this important resolution. Instead of
standing with students and taxpayers, President Trump stood with
corrupt private colleges and Secretary DeVos.
Today, I ask my Republican friends: Do you want to stand with our
country's students, with the future of our workforce and our
communities, or do you want to betray them to please the President? I
think the choice is clear, and I hope you do, too.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 9 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Iowa (Ms. Finkenauer).
Ms. FINKENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution in
overriding the President's veto.
I want to talk about two Iowans who tried taking a step forward but
were knocked two steps back by a for-profit school looking for an easy
buck and taking advantage of the hopes and dreams of my constituents.
Julie, a mother from Iowa, was looking to boost her career, and Jeff,
an Army reservist and construction manager, was trying to continue his
education.
They bought into ITT Technical Institute's promises, worked hard for
new career opportunities, and took out loans to do it. Both had their
lives turned upside down when ITT Technical Institute suddenly closed.
A 2016 Federal rule forgave loans for folks like Julie and Jeff, who
were obviously taken advantage of.
Unfortunately, this administration decided to roll back the
commonsense rule, weakening protections for borrowers.
In our State, there are more than 1,000 borrowers who were taken
advantage of and who are still waiting for their cases to be resolved.
We must stand with them and override the President's veto of this
resolution.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib), a member of the Financial
Services Committee and Oversight and Reform Committee.
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In January of this year, I stood here to speak against this
administration's continued attack on our students. Five months later,
Secretary DeVos, with the support of this administration, continues to
work on behalf of predatory for-profit institutions rather than the
students they lied to that they scammed.
Instead of ensuring that students who were cheated out of their
future by this these fraudulent institutions receive debt relief,
Secretary DeVos is fighting to ensure that these institutions are never
held accountable.
Both Democratic and Republican Members alike agreed that if you were
defrauded by one of these colleges, then your Federal student loan
should be forgiven. We must stop this administration's relentless
efforts to protect the pockets of predatory corporations at the expense
of our students. I am proud to support this veto override.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Democrats' claims that we have heard
today, the Trump administration and Republicans in the House are
committed to providing relief to students who have been truly harmed by
fraudulent practices.
The Obama administration's borrower defense rule, though, was
extremely difficult to administer. It left students and institutions
confused, encouraged massive and unnecessary loan forgiveness, and
created a hefty bill for taxpayers. Anyone who believes it was a
streamlined process, I will show you some swampland in New Mexico.
President Trump acted quickly to protect borrowers and taxpayers
better. The 2019 borrower defense rule clarified standards and made a
process more accessible.
If Democrats overturn the President's veto, we will be left with the
convoluted Obama rule. Under the rules associated with today's
legislation, there can be no revisions made even to improve or clarify
the Obama rule.
We want all schools to serve students well. In particular, we want
veterans and their education benefits protected. In this
administration, they will be.
Mr. Speaker, I have worked hard all my life to help people get a good
education and have a better life. I would not be supporting the
overturn of this rule if that was not the direction in which we were
going. The Education Department's borrower defense rule protects all
student borrowers, including veterans; holds higher education
institutions accountable; and saves taxpayers $11 billion.
Unfortunately, Democrats will stop at nothing to tear down meaningful
reforms ushered in under President Trump's leadership, even if it comes
at the expense of our Nation's students.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about $11 billion. Let me tell you
exactly what that is. That is $11 billion
[[Page H2555]]
that students who have been defrauded will now have to pay if this
resolution fails.
According to the fraud formula from the Department of Education, even
those who can prove fraud can expect relief, on average, to go from
about 50 percent of their debt down to 3 percent of their debt. Many,
because of that formula, will get absolutely nothing.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, now is the time that we have a choice. We can give
relief to students, especially veterans who have been defrauded by
predatory colleges, or make them pay student loans even though they
received a worthless educational experience.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to side with the students and vote
``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the
President to the contrary notwithstanding.
Under the Constitution, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 173, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 120]
YEAS--238
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)
Clay
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
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
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
Mfume
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
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--173
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson (OH)
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dunn
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garcia (CA)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (KY)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiffany
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--19
Abraham
Babin
Barr
Bishop (UT)
Brooks (IN)
Carter (TX)
Curtis
Duncan
Emmer
Gallagher
King (IA)
Marchant
Mullin
Rogers (AL)
Rooney (FL)
Sensenbrenner
Spano
Walorski
Westerman
{time} 1327
Mr. WRIGHT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. LEE of Nevada, Mr. CLEAVER, Ms. LEE of California, and Mr. YOUNG
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the veto of the
President was sustained and the joint resolution was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have ``nay'' on rollcall No. 120.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS
Axne (Raskin)
Cardenas (Gomez)
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Engel (Titus)
Frankel (Kuster (NH))
Garamendi (Boyle, Brendan F.)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Khanna (Gomez)
Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
Langevin (Lynch)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lewis (Kildee)
Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
Lipinski (Cooper)
Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Lowey (Meng)
Moore (Beyer)
Napolitano (Correa)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Pingree (Kuster (NH))
Sanchez (Roybal-Allard)
Serrano (Meng)
Speier (Scanlon)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (McGovern)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The veto message and the joint resolution
are referred to the Committee on Education and Labor.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
____________________