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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, but I think what we all support and what we all agree on is that individuals who are harmed by fraudulent practices should have their debts forgiven.

And let's just look at where we are. This is 20 years this has been on the books. For 20 years, 60 cases were filed--60, I will emphasize that. Since 2015, at the end of the previous administration, 287,000 cases have been filed.

So we all want to know if there is fraud. We don't want fraud. We don't want people harmed by fraud, individuals harmed by fraud to have to pay that back. And remember, the money is going to our hardworking taxpayers.

So that is all this rules says. It says that there is fraud; you are harmed by fraud; and you don't have to pay it back as an individual.

Let's just look at an example of that.

What if the fraud of a school is they advertise a work placement rate of 85 percent and it is only 50 percent. Well, that is fraud. But if you were one of the 50 percent who got a job, were you harmed? You got your education; you got a job; you moved forward. Should the taxpayers forgive your student loans when you got the education and got the job that you were moving for?

That is all. We are trying to make it reasonable. The 287,000 cases that are sitting before Secretary DeVos would be under the old rule. This is the new rule going forward, so people will know what it is and understand that, one, we are fighting fraud. If you were harmed by fraud and you can prove that as an individual, you still get your loans forgiven.

I think it is reasonable. I think that it sets a process in place that people can understand. It has it going forward. I support the rule, and I oppose this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source