[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.

                          ____________________