The House looks to vote to override a presidential veto of H J Res 76, Disapprove Education Department's Student Loan Borrower Defense to Repayment Rule . The resolution disapproves the rule issued in September 2019 regarding "borrower defense" to student loan repayment, under which students with federal student loans may have a portion of those loans forgiven if they were defrauded by their college or university. The new rules would block students defrauded by for-profit schools prior to mid-2017 — including those from Corinthian and other for-profit colleges that closed down beginning in 2014 — from obtaining student debt relief under the standards of a 2016 Obama administration rule, and it sets new standards for such debt forgiveness for student loans disbursed after July 1, 2020. A two-thirds vote of both chambers is needed to override a veto. The measure was sent to the president last week and had not been vetoed as of press time Friday — but was expected to be vetoed given earlier White House threats to veto the measure. 

Supporters

Supporters of the resolution, primarily Democrats, say the new rule issued by the Education Department is unfair to students who are exploited by for-profit schools. It is particularly unfair to students of Corinthian and other for-profit schools that closed who have been expecting relief under the Obama administration rules, and whose education, careers, and financial well-being have already been damaged — including by the Trump administration, which has actively sought to collect loans in violation of court orders. They say the three-year window of time to apply for relief is far too narrow, and argue that prohibiting the granting of relief to borrowers as a group and instead requiring every student to apply for relief individually will place an undue burden on individuals who are already suffering, especially since they would be required to demonstrate exactly how they had been financially harmed. Simply put, students who are defrauded and receive worthless degrees should be made whole, not partially compensated, even if they find some other way to thrive financially. Increasing the burden on borrowers and making it difficult to receive loan relief, as the new rule does, will give for-profit colleges the green light to continue their predatory activities, they say.

Opponents

Opponents of the resolution, primarily Republicans, argue that the Trump administration's new loan forgiveness rule is balanced and fair and focuses on individual circumstances, rather than blanket forgiveness that may not be warranted — particularly since taxpayers are bearing the burden of such loan forgiveness. They say the rule more carefully defines those misleading statements that can be considered true deception and fraud by educational facilities, which will help prevent frivolous claims such as students applying for loan forgiveness because their dorm room was not as nice as the one shown to them on tour, or because a bad economy made it difficult for them to find employment after graduation. They agree that bad actors in the educational arena should be held accountable for outright lies, but argue that students at institutions of higher education are adults who must be responsible for researching and comparing different institutions. Finally, they say that basing loan forgiveness on the level of actual financial harm that has occurred to a student is wholly justified; if a school misrepresented itself but the student still manages to thrive economically and suffers no economic harm, taxpayers should not be on the hook for unnecessary loan forgiveness.