Providing for Congressional Disapproval of Rule Submitted By Department of Education Relating to ``Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of this resolution and thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution conveys the congressional disapproval of the Department of Education's refusal to protect students and taxpayers from predatory institutions. Those students are victims of widespread, proven fraud about graduation rates, job placement rates, and transferability of credits.

Fortunately, the law provides relief, but instead of maintaining the Obama-era borrower defense rule, which provides a fair and streamlined process to provide debt relief to defrauded students, the Department of Education has finalized a new borrower defense rule that prevents an overwhelming majority of defrauded students from getting relief.

We should reject this new rule and provide meaningful relief to defrauded students. Making defrauded students whole is the right thing to do, but it is not the only thing we should do.

We must ensure that students and taxpayers are not defrauded in the first place. That is why we should pass the College Affordability Act, a comprehensive overhaul of our higher education system that cracks down on low-quality, predatory schools. The College Affordability Act holds schools accountable for students' success and cuts the cost of college for students and families across the country.

Mr. Speaker, to address the present problem, those students need relief today. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of congressional disapproval.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. All institutions, regardless of their tax status, must be held accountable for fraudulent behavior, and that is exactly what the 2019 borrower defense regulation accomplishes.

I am very interested in the way our colleagues are using the term and the way the Obama administration categorizes the schools we call for- profits. They are called predatory. Why is that?

It is very interesting to me that I have always thought that what makes this country great is our capitalistic system, yet our colleagues think that anybody that makes a profit is predatory. That is so counter to the American theme, the American way of life, but that is what they call them, predatory. It is really, really unfair to do that.

Republicans care about all students, all institutions, and all taxpayers. It is a shame my friends across the aisle feel otherwise.

Back in 2016, the previous administration let ``selective, regionally accredited liberal arts schools'' off the hook from facing consequences for inflating data in marketing materials.

Students who filed a borrower defense claim in this situation would be denied relief. Why? Because President Obama's administration believed this theoretical school and the education the student subsequently received is somehow superior to other institutions. Justice was not served in this example.

Before my colleagues argue that this example is theoretical and rarely happens, let me list a few examples, without naming names.

A public flagship university gave U.S. News incorrect information about alumni contributions from 1999 to 2019.

Last year, five schools were unranked from U.S. News & World Report after all five of those schools--two public and three private not-for- profits--acknowledged they provided incorrect information.

In 2018, a public university admitted, over the course of several years, that it intentionally--intentionally--submitted false data to boost the rankings of its online MBA program.

Other examples in the past decade include prominent institutions fudging acceptance rates, SAT scores, high school GPAs, and graduation rates.

The Trump administration recognizes the borrower defense to repayment process must be fair to students, taxpayers, and institutions. I am glad they struck a balance that gives due process to all parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 76, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source