Susie Lee

Mrs. LEE of Nevada

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I would like to clarify for the record that this example that was just included by Ms. Foxx was an example that was included in the rule in 2016, and in fact, there were no claims filed under that example. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to, first, clarify the record that the 60 students who filed claims in the past 20 years is because students didn't understand they had the right to file those claims. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to clarify that the comments that were just quoted were on the proposed rule, and those issues were fixed. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on my side.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and would inquire through the Chair if my colleague has any remaining speakers on her side.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to correct some misinformation about the 2016 rule that my colleagues on the other side have stated today. First of all, the law, the Higher Education Act, entitles borrowers a right to relief. This applies to all institutions, not just a few. The reason the 2019 rule saves money is because meritorious claims will be denied. Under this new rule, students will see only 3 percent of their loans discharged, and predatory institutions will pay only 1 percent of their fraud. The 2019 rule sets an impossibly high bar for students to prove relief, inconsistent with State law. The 2016 rule allowed for arbitration. It just banned predispute arbitration and class action waivers. The 2016 rule was closely negotiated with institutions, including HBCUs, that struck a balance that was fair to institutions and students. The Department of Education predicts that by 2021 over 200,000 borrowers will face this type of fraud. This is not about borrowers in the past; this is about borrowers moving forward. This number will only continue to grow if we don't pass the reforms in the College Affordability Act. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters: a letter from The American Legion; a letter from 20 State attorneys general; and a letter from a coalition of groups, including Student Veterans of America, supporting our effort to overturn the Secretary's harmful borrower defense rule. The American Legion, Office of the National Commander, Washington, DC, December 18, 2019. Hon. Richard Durbin, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Durbin: On behalf of the nearly 2 million members of The American Legion, I write to express our support for Joint Resolution 56, providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to, ``Borrower Defense Institutional Accountability.'' The rule, as currently written, is fundamentally rigged against defrauded borrowers or student loans, depriving them of the opportunity for debt relief that Congress intended to afford them under the Higher Education Act. Affirming this position is American Legion Resolution No. 82: Preserve Veteran and Servicemember Rights to Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense Protections, adopted in our National Convention 2017. Thousands of student veterans have been defrauded over the years--promised their credits would transfer when they wouldn't, given false or misleading job placement rates in marketing, promised one educational experience when they were recruited, but given something completely different. This type of deception against our veterans and servicemembers has been a lucrative scam for unscrupulous actors. As veterans are aggressively targeted due to their service to our country, they must be afforded the right to group relief. The Department of Education's ``Borrower Defense'' rule eliminates this right, forcing veterans to individually prove their claim, share the specific type of financial harm they suffered, and prove the school knowingly made substantial misrepresentations. The preponderance of evidence required for this process is so onerous that the Department of Education itself estimated that only 3 percent of applicants would get relief. Until every veteran's application for student loan forgiveness has been processed, we will continue to demand fair and timely decisions. The rule that the Department of Education has promulgated flagrantly denies defrauded veterans these dignities, and The American Legion calls on Congress to overturn this regulatory action. Senator Durbin, The American Legion applauds your leadership in addressing this critical issue facing our nation's veterans and their families. For God & Country, James W. ``Bill'' Oxford, National Commander.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 76 and to reject Secretary DeVos' harmful rule that makes it nearly impossible for borrowers to seek the relief that they have the right to seek. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am here to speak in support of the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act, and, in particular, I want to speak in support of my bill which is included in the act, the Enhancing Retirement Security for Medicare Beneficiaries Act, which would guarantee that the disbursements of retirement savings are not counted when determining if someone qualifies for Medicare part D's low-income subsidy program. As a young girl, I learned the importance of saving money. My first job was running a paper route in my neighborhood in Canton, Ohio, at the age of 8. At the end of every week, I would put aside a quarter or two just to save up for a candy bar. It wasn't much, but it taught me the importance that saving money is worth it. Americans and our seniors should not be punished for saving for their retirement, but when retirement savings are counted towards eligibility for prescription drug assistance, we are punishing the very seniors who have been working hard and saving money. The fact is that no group of Nevadans relies more on prescription drugs than our seniors, and the rising cost of living is hard enough on older Americans. We should be making it easier for them to retire in dignity, and that means not forcing them to choose between buying groceries or lifesaving medication. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that my bill was included in the underlying text of H.R. 3, and it is time that we lower prescription drug costs not just for seniors on Medicare, but for all Americans.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, healthcare and social workers are some of the most dedicated, least appreciated workers in this country. They are the workers caring for the sick, the elderly, and the most vulnerable Americans, while usually making just barely enough to get by. A tough job is made even tougher by the fact that these workers who are treating workers in stress, often in private settings, are five times as likely to be the victims of workplace violence. What does it say about our country that we can't protect those workers who have dedicated their lives to protecting our most vulnerable citizens? It is unfair, and the bottom line is this: No person should feel unsafe in their place of work. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, has the authority to protect American caregivers and healthcare workers from workplace violence, but the reality is that there is no nationwide OSHA standard for how employers are supposed to protect their employees from workplace violence. Not just that, but in 24 States, nearly half the country, public-sector health and social service workers are not covered by OSHA protections. We have the responsibility and we have the authority to protect America's workers, but we have not given our government or our businesses the tools they need to protect hardworking Americans from workplace violence. The underlying bill of this rule will change that. The Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act would require OSHA to implement a standard for workplace protections for healthcare and social workers. It provides protections for public-sector workers where none existed before, and it identifies risks, solutions, training, and, importantly, protections from retaliation for those workers who report violence in the workplace. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this underlying bill and uphold our duty to keep every American safe.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 619. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Davidson of Ohio

Mrs. LEE of Nevada

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Nevada's Third District, I rise today for the 288,000 Nevadans with Medicaid, thanks to the Affordable Care Act; For the thousands of young Nevadans under the age of 26 who can stay on their parent's health plan, thanks to the Affordable Care Act; For the nearly 350,000 Nevada seniors on Medicare part D who are now paying less for their prescription drugs, thanks to the Affordable Care Act; For the 20 million Americans who are scared right now of losing the healthcare they have finally received, thanks to the Affordable Care Act; and For the 1.2 million Nevadans and 130 million Americans with asthma, high blood pressure, ALS, cancer, cystic fibrosis, depression, HIV, and other diseases, for their preexisting conditions that will not be protected if the Affordable Care Act is dismantled. Look, it is pretty simple. If the lower court decision in Texas v. United States lawsuit stands, millions could lose their health insurance. I stand for every one of those Americans, and we should all stand for them.

Mrs. LEE of Nevada

Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present an amendment.