March 10, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 46 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages S1658-S1660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     LEGISLATIVE SESSION--Continued

                                 ______
                                 

  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''--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in just a few moments, we are going to be 
considering the motion to proceed to the borrower CRA, and I would like 
to say a few words, understanding that the Senators are expecting this 
motion to come up in about 5 minutes.
  This is a joint resolution that was passed on a bipartisan basis in 
the House of Representatives to overturn the borrower defense rule that 
has been promulgated by Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. 
I am pleased to be the Senate's sponsor.
  Here is what it comes down to--hundreds of thousands of Federal 
student loan borrowers having been defrauded by their schools. They 
went to some of these for-profit schools that have gone out of 
business, but many schools defrauded these students over the years.
  We in Congress established what was known as the borrower defense. We 
said, if you borrow money from the Federal Government and go to 
colleges that we acknowledge as being accredited and they defraud you, 
lie to you, misrepresent to you what your education is going to cost or 
what it is going to give you, then, you don't have to be saddled with 
the student debt for the rest of your life because of their lies, 
because of their fraud. You have a chance to go to the Department of 
Education and plead your case that you were defrauded, and you should 
at least be relieved of some, if not all, of your student loan debt. 
That is what it is all about.
  There are 230,000 student borrowers who are waiting for the 
Department of Education, under Betsy DeVos, to do something. The 
Department has not done anything except to come up with a new rule that 
says, at this point, it is going to be harder for these students to 
prove fraud. It isn't enough that the States and other units of 
government have found fraud by these schools. These students are 
supposed to be their own lawyers and their own investigators and prove 
the fraud and how it affected them personally.
  Is it reasonable for a young student who has been defrauded and is 
carrying student debt to have that responsibility? Secretary DeVos 
thinks yes. I think no. That is what this vote is all about.
  Who agrees with my position on this issue? Most of the advocates for 
students do. In addition, the veterans organizations across America, 
led by the American Legion, are supporting our effort now under this 
Congressional Review Act to do away with the new rule by the Secretary 
of the Department of Education. They say it is unfair to veterans--it 
is--and unfair to student borrowers to hold them to this standard.
  The American Legion's national commander, Bill Oxford, called the 
rule, which we are going to get a chance to vote on after the debate, 
``fundamentally rigged against defrauded borrowers.'' He is speaking on 
behalf of veterans. He could be speaking on behalf of young men and 
women across America who have been misled by these schools over and 
over again. The Bipartisan Policy Center Action, the NAACP, Third Way, 
20 State attorneys general, and a host of others have joined me in 
urging the Senate to overturn this unfair rule.
  The Senate has a chance today to show the country that we can come 
together and do the right thing for students and veterans. How many 
times have we given speeches about how much we care about veterans? 
Here is a chance to vote with the veterans, especially those who have 
been defrauded out of their GI bill of rights and have ended up with 
additional debt.
  Secondly, how many times have people told us these student debts are 
too much, are ruining kids' lives, and to give them a chance? I am not 
for forgiving all loans to all students, but these students have been 
defrauded. They should have an opportunity to start life again and not 
be burdened with the debt that is going to make life impossible in 
their futures.

[[Page S1659]]

  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me. 
Regardless of what you think of the 2016 rule, we can certainly do 
better than what Secretary DeVos has come up with.
  I have been advised that we are not quite ready for my request of the 
Chair. So I will say a couple of more words on the subject. I moved it 
along quickly, but I didn't have to.
  Under the new Betsy DeVos rule, it turns out that, of the 100 percent 
of students who have been defrauded and are asking for relief, the 
estimate is that 3 percent will be successful but that 97 percent of 
these students will not have the opportunity to get this relief.
  One of my colleagues whom I respect very much came to the floor here 
and said: If your car is a lemon, you don't sue the bank; you sue the 
dealer. A college can be a lemon just like a car can be. In his 
scenario, the school is the dealer, and the Department of Education is 
the bank. The case that he is making for a student who has been 
defrauded by a school is that one has been sold a lemon of an education 
and that we should go after the offending school.
  Doesn't that sound right--that, if a school has defrauded you, you 
would go after it?
  It turns out that the rule that Secretary DeVos has promulgated ties 
the hands of a student who is going after the school. It requires 
forced, mandatory arbitration. So you can't take it to court. It 
eliminates class actions so that students from the same school, like 
the Corinthian Colleges, which went bankrupt, can't even come together 
as a class. No, you have to lawyer up individually. You have to get 
ready to fight in some room that has been set aside in which the for-
profit school and the Department of Education are going to argue 
against you.
  Is that what we want to say to these students who have been through 
bad college experiences and want to get on with their lives, who found 
out that these credit hours from these for-profit colleges didn't 
transfer anywhere, and who found out the courses that were supposed to 
lead to jobs didn't lead to jobs?
  These students were misled by these schools, and these schools are 
notorious for it. The question is this: Are we going to stand up for 
the students, many of whom are veterans, or are we going to stand up 
for the schools that have been affected by this?
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I rise in support of S.J.Res. 56, a 
resolution of congressional disapproval for the Department of 
Education's, Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability rule.
  It is inconceivable to me that the Federal Department of Education 
would choose to protect the profits of predatory corporations instead 
of the students they ripped off, but sadly, that is exactly what 
Secretary DeVos's borrower defense regulation does. It is now up to 
Congress to step in and reverse the harm that her Department is seeking 
to do.
  Four years ago, the Obama administration took action when it became 
clear that a number of for profit colleges were defrauding students, 
leaving them on the hook for massive loans without an education or a 
job. The borrower defense rule established under President Obama made 
sure that students who had been hurt by these schools could access debt 
relief and get a chance at restarting their education. Unfortunately, 
Secretary DeVos chose to gut that regulation, making it nearly 
impossible for defrauded students to get any kind of debt relief from 
the loans they took out to attend colleges that were later found to be 
bad actors. To make matters worse, Secretary DeVos also rescinded 
existing protections and ended forgiveness pathways that were included 
in the 2016 borrower defense rule. Secretary DeVos took what was a fair 
and transparent process and rigged the deck against students.
  Because of the new barriers to debt relief established by Secretary 
DeVos's new borrower defense rule, only an estimated 3 percent of loans 
associated with school misconduct will be discharged. The DeVos rule 
eliminates the ability for borrowers to file for relief in groups and 
requires individuals to meet an unreasonably high standard of evidence 
that the school intended to mislead them. In addition, the rule only 
gives borrowers 3 years from the time they leave school to file a 
claim. In a large number of previous cases, it has taken many years to 
gather evidence of and establish fraud. Finally, the DeVos rule 
prohibits borrowers from appealing the decision on their claim, even if 
new evidence of a school's misconduct comes to light.
  This new rule might be good for corporate profits, but it will have a 
cruel impact on many vulnerable people who can afford it the least. I 
hear often from Connecticut residents who have been crippled by massive 
debt accrued while attending what turned out to be a valueless 
institution and who desperately need access to debt relief through a 
borrowers defense claim.
  I have heard from a number of students in Connecticut who joined a 
lawsuit in the bankruptcy case of ITT Technical Institute after its 
closure left 40,000 students in limbo. Students described falsified job 
placement rates, lack of career connection with industries associated 
with their degree programs, unqualified teachers, and inaccurate 
information about their loan terms.
  Meanwhile, the Department holds those with claims in financial limbo 
as they wait years for a decision. Natarsha Morales, who attended 
Briarwood College in Southington, CT, filed a claim on $39,000 in 
outstanding Federal student loans. Natarsha filed this claim nearly 4 
years ago and has yet to receive a decision. During this time, 
Briarwood College, which later became Lincoln College, closed 
permanently after a history of defrauding students like her. As the 
Department neither grants nor denies her request, the interest on her 
loans continues to grow. As a result, Natarsha has struggled to plan 
for her financial future. She has been unable to buy a home and unable 
to enroll in another educational program.
  These students were just trying to do the right thing; they made 
sacrifices to try to get an education, better themselves, and get on a 
path to a better-paying career. Tragically, we now know that the 
degrees these students obtained--or sought to obtain--were worthless, 
and they were taken advantage of by predatory institutions that cared 
only about taking as much money as possible. The least we can do for 
these students is to give them a chance at loan forgiveness.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S.J.Res. 56 and repeal the 
DeVos Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability rule that turns its 
back on borrowers and reduces the culpability of risky institutions.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand there is a discharge petition 
at the desk for S.J. Res. 56 that has been signed by at least 30 
Senators, which will cause the joint resolution to be discharged under 
the Congressional Review Act; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.


                           Motion to Proceed

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 439, 
S.J. Res. 56, a joint resolution 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
proceed.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-
Smith).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S1660]]

  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cruz
     Hyde-Smith
     Sanders
     Warren
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________