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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 To make matters worse, Secretary DeVos also rescinded existing protections and ended forgiveness pathways that were included in the 2016 borrower defense rule.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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source