Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
HBCUs and borrower protections at center of fight over risk‑sharing, 90/10, borrower defense and closed‑school rules
Loading...
Summary
Democrats said risk‑sharing, repeal of the 90/10 rule, and rollback of borrower‑defense protections would harm HBCUs and defrauded students; Republicans said the reforms create accountability and fiscal discipline.
Lede: Several Democratic members argued the reconciliation package’s risk‑sharing provisions and the repeal of key consumer protections would disproportionately harm historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and low‑income students, while Republicans said the bill’s sector‑neutral accountability would force institutions to improve outcomes and lower costs.
Nut graf: Debate covered three interlocking areas: (1) risk‑sharing penalties that would require colleges to reimburse the federal government for unpaid loans; (2) rollback or repeal of regulations such as borrower defense to repayment and the 90/10 rule; and (3) changes to closed‑school discharge and protections for students defrauded by institutions. Democrats raised empirical and civil‑rights concerns; Republicans framed the changes as fiscal discipline and policy‑neutral accountability.
Body: Representative Alma Adams (D‑N.C.) and others offered amendments to require Education Department certifications that risk‑sharing would not disproportionately harm HBCUs; Adams noted committee data that “77% of HBCUs would be hit with risk sharing penalties” and projected multi‑million dollar impacts at specific HBCUs. Representative Suzanna Bonamici and others emphasized that eliminating the 90/10 rule would reopen a pathway for predatory for‑profit recruitment of veterans and low‑income students. Representative Don Young? Not present. Democrats also defended borrower defense and closed‑school discharge protections; Representative Lucy McBath and Representative Bobby Scott argued that rolling back those protections would leave defrauded students to pay back loans taken at institutions that closed or misled them.
Republicans argued that borrower defense and aggressive administrative rulemaking in past Democratic administrations created budgetary exposure and regulatory inconsistency; they urged sector‑neutral accountability tied to student outcomes rather than sector‑based rules.
Ending: Key Democratic amendments to protect HBCUs and preserve borrower defenses failed in recorded votes. The substitute as adopted leaves in place provisions that Democrats warned would weaken consumer protections and impose financial penalties that could force some institutions to change offerings or admissions.
