[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 20, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7978-H7983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1098, JOINT CONSOLIDATION LOAN
SEPARATION ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1361 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1361
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1098) to amend
the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize borrowers to
separate joint consolidation loans. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and Labor or their respective designees; and (2)
one motion to commit.
Sec. 2. (a) At any time through the legislative day of
Thursday, September 22, 2022, the Speaker may entertain
motions offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the
House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV
with respect to multiple measures described in subsection
(b), and the Chair shall put the question on any such motion
without debate or intervening motion.
(b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any
measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules
on the legislative day of September 19, 2022, September 20,
2022, September 21, 2022, or September 22, 2022, in the form
as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were ordered and
further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule
XX.
(c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection
(a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas
and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with
respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such
motions are considered as withdrawn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Watson Coleman). The gentleman from
Colorado is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.
Fischbach) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a
rule, House Resolution 1361, providing for consideration of S. 1098,
the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, under a closed rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member on the Committee on Education and
Labor, as well as one motion to commit.
Finally, the rule provides the majority leader, or his designee, the
ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills
considered on September 19 to September 22. This authority lasts
through September 22, 2022.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased we are here today to provide
consideration of
[[Page H7979]]
the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, led by my colleagues
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and Representative David Price of
North Carolina.
From 1993 to 2006, the Department of Education allowed married
couples to consolidate their student loans for a lower interest rate
through the Joint Consolidation Loan program requiring participating
borrowers to be jointly liable for repayment of their loans.
Congress ended the program in 2006, but Congress never provided a way
for borrowers to disentangle the joint debt. Across the country, there
are borrowers who remain liable for their former spouse's debt, even in
cases of domestic violence.
{time} 1215
Today, we have an opportunity to address this problem and help
borrowers regain their financial independence.
The Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act allows borrowers to apply
to the Department of Education to split their consolidated loan into
two separate Federal direct loans. Borrowers can submit either a joint
application or an individual application in the case of domestic
violence, economic abuse, or inability to reach a former spouse.
The joint consolidation loan remainder would be split proportionally
based on the percentages that each borrower originally brought into the
loan. The two new Federal direct loans would have the same interest
rates as the joint consolidation loan.
Additionally, the bill would enable borrowers to regain access to
student loan relief programs such as the public service loan
forgiveness program and income-driven repayment programs for which they
were previously ineligible due to their joint consolidation loans.
Like many of my colleagues, I have heard from constituents who have
joint consolidated loans with their former spouses. Some of those
constituents express frustration that, due to having a joint loan, they
become ineligible to apply for other student loan relief programs, even
though they are no longer with their spouse and they are carrying the
burden of the joint loan.
Constituents also entrusted me with their personal stories of
domestic abuse and how these joint consolidated loans won't allow them
to get away from their abusive former spouses.
Just a few weeks ago, a constituent from Wheat Ridge, Colorado,
reached out to my office. It has been nearly 17 years since her
separation from her abusive spouse. Following her divorce, not only did
she and her family continue to receive harassment from this individual,
but she was left with the financial burden of paying the entire loan
balance because her former spouse refused to pay his share.
All she wanted was a fresh start, so she moved to Colorado, but her
joint consolidated loan with her former spouse continues to loom over
her.
She is not asking for her loans to be forgiven. She is simply asking
to be finally freed from this abusive relationship by passing this
Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act.
I thank her and all the other individuals who have come forward to
share how this loan program that ended nearly two decades ago continues
to affect their daily lives.
I commend Representative Price, Senator Warner, and all of my
colleagues for this work on this bill. I urge all my colleagues to
support the rule and the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative from
Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
S. 1098 is intended to ensure borrowers who need to separate their
loans urgently because they are victims of domestic or economic abuse
are not put in further harmful financial situations due to having a
joint consolidation loan that cannot be separated.
Republicans fully support the intention of the bill, and it is
something we should be able to address in a fully bipartisan manner.
However, they are concerned that this bill misses the mark.
According to the Department of Education, this bill could not be
implemented for at least a year or longer. If we want to truly solve
this problem, victims need help immediately.
This bill also broadens the Secretary of Education's authority. It
gives the Secretary the authority to allow for new consolidation loans
if it is in the fiscal interest of the Federal Government but does not
define the term.
In addition, this bill did not receive a hearing in the House
Education and Labor Committee, no discussion, no input, simply
accepting the Senate's version, which was introduced before the
President's announcement of student loan forgiveness.
My Republican colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee have an
alternative bill that will protect victims of abuse, allowing borrowers
to separate their loans immediately rather than waiting up to 18
months.
It also protects taxpayers from potential abuse of authority by the
Secretary of Education by narrowly tailoring the authority to help
those in need. Congress should always be concerned about relinquishing
authority to the executive branch.
This bill also closes all the gaps that exist in the bill that has
been brought up on the floor today. Yet, my colleagues were ignored,
and now we are left discussing an incomplete policy.
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this alternative
that would solve the problems without ceding more authority to the
Secretary.
Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask the Members to do the
same. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, first, I include in the Record a Statement of
Administration Policy, dated September 19, 2022, supporting this
particular piece of legislation.
Statement of Administration Policy
S. 1098--JOINT CONSOLIDATION LOAN SEPARATION ACT--SEN. WARNER, D-VA,
AND 3 COSPONSORS
The Administration supports House passage of S. 1098, the
Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act. The bill would build
on actions the Administration has taken to support federal
student loan borrowers.
While the authority to originate joint consolidation loans
ended in 2006, borrowers with these loans were given no way
to disentangle their debts, even in the event of divorce,
economic abuse, or unresponsiveness from a former spouse. S.
1098 would allow two borrowers with a joint consolidation
loan to jointly submit an application to the Department of
Education to separate their consolidated loan into two
separate loans. The loans would be split proportionately
based on the original loan amounts. This bill would also
allow survivors of domestic violence or economic abuse or
borrowers who are unable to reach the other borrower to
submit an individual application to separate their portion of
the joint consolidation loan.
The Administration urges the House to pass S. 1098, the
Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, and send it to the
President, to fix one part of the student loan program and
provide this critical support to borrowers with joint
consolidation loans.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend from
Minnesota, and I appreciate her remarks. The amendment that has been
discussed that the Republicans are proposing simply does not go far
enough.
This bill really should be embraced unanimously in this House, just
as it was in the Senate between Democrats and Republicans, allowing for
spouses to separate, take on their own specific piece of the loan, and
move forward, no longer staying in this kind of locked-in relationship,
especially in those situations.
They do recognize the abusive relationships, but there are also some
where there is economic abuse or where you simply can't reach the
spouse. In those instances, too, there should be the ability to divide
these back into their original forms.
So, this bill, like it was in the Senate, should be accepted, I
think, universally by this House. I am sorry to see that there is
opposition. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I point out that the vote that my
colleague does point out regarding this bill in the Senate was before
the President made his announcement regarding student loan forgiveness.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, all I have to say on
this rule is to listen to whatever she said, nothing of what my
colleague from the State of Colorado says.
[[Page H7980]]
I am actually here because my good friend, Mrs. Fischbach, is
allowing me to correct a mistake. I missed the 1-minute time period, so
I am going to use my time to actually honor one of my constituents.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Thomas Ramage, the fifth
president of Parkland College since its 1966 inception, who will retire
at the end of this year following a remarkable 15 years as president
and 24 years of service to the institution.
Under the leadership of Dr. Ramage, Parkland College completed a $92
million campus master plan that created six new buildings, adding
250,000 square feet of classrooms, labs, and student service spaces to
provide the quality educational facilities that our students need.
During his time at Parkland, Tom has continued to adapt to the
changing needs of industry, acquiring the Institute of Aviation at
Willard Airport from the University of Illinois and forming lasting
relationships with private-sector partners.
Under his guidance, Parkland also leads the Illinois community
college system by enrolling more than 350 international students,
representing well over 50 countries.
Dr. Ramage's strong fiscal management and guidance led Parkland
College through a recession, a State budget crisis, and a pandemic. The
legacy of excellence that he leaves behind is even stronger than when
he became president in 2007.
I have had the pleasure of working with Tom throughout my decade in
Congress. I am proud to call him my friend, and I congratulate him on
his well-earned retirement.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, ordinarily, I would argue with my
friend from Illinois, but since it was such a nice testimonial to the
doctor, I will support him in his 1 minute and his nice comments as his
friend retires.
Getting back to the matter at hand, Madam Speaker, we are here to
deal with loan separation. I would say that we are looking at some
14,000 loans to which this might be applicable.
It will provide a path forward for borrowers with these loans who no
longer want their debt to be tied to their former spouse. It is
particularly important for borrowers who just want to meet their own
debt obligation without being saddled with someone else's.
We have heard from these constituents, as we heard from my
constituent from Wheat Ridge, Colorado, about the fact that she has
been divorced for 17 years and is still saddled with a debt that her
husband owed and won't take responsibility for.
Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule allowing for the immediate consideration of H.R.
8749 to repeal the methane emissions and waste reduction incentive
program for petroleum and natural gas systems.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record along with the extraneous materials immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, just last week, a constituent called
my office with concerns about the President's energy policy. Joshua
hauls gas for a living and said it is the best job he has ever had, but
he worries that President Biden wants to take that away. He asked for
my support and expressed his appreciation for anything that I can do to
protect the industry.
H.R. 8749 is a key piece of that puzzle. It supports American energy
independence and all those who rely on it by protecting the Permian
Basin and the largest secure supply of crude oil in the world.
If the Biden administration gets their way on this issue, production
will be slowed in that region, jobs will be lost, and gas prices will
continue to rise.
Madam Speaker, this Presidential administration is actively working
against the oil and gas industry. They have increased natural gas
production taxes, prevented energy development in Alaska, and made
permitting more difficult.
They are prioritizing supplemental energy technologies like wind and
solar, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration's annual energy
outlook projected that petroleum and natural gas will be the most used
fuels in the U.S. through 2050. We cannot abandon these reliable and
essential sources of energy.
Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Pfluger), the author of the bill, to further explain the amendment.
Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for
so eloquently explaining the underlying reason that I rise to oppose
the previous question so that we may immediately consider H.R. 8749,
which is my bill to strike the new tax on every American, the new tax
on natural gas that was included in the Democrats' paycheck reduction
act.
At a time when we actually are witnessing probably the most
destructive energy poverty crisis in the civilized world, which is
happening right now in Europe, in most cases happening in countries
that are now experiencing a tenfold increase of their heating bills, a
tenfold increase of their energy bills, a tenfold increase of all the
requirements of energy, the most foundational piece of any economy,
President Biden is driving an agenda to do the same thing here in the
United States, driving an agenda to impoverish the energy needs of this
country.
While the President may deny the existence of inflation and crippling
price hikes, those of us who are actually buying our own groceries and
paying our bills every month know that is false. No position in the
United States can deny the economic facts--8.3 percent. That, I
believe, pales in comparison to what areas in rural America are
actually paying.
Price hikes on energy are the largest driver of this inflation by
far. Gas utility bills are up 33 percent. Electricity is up almost 16
percent. It is 16 percent more expensive than it was this time last
year.
In the United States right now, today, energy costs are so high that
one in six Americans are facing a notice from their electric company
that they may be disconnected--one in six.
When I said these words just a couple of months ago, everybody on the
other side of the aisle laughed at that proposition. Yet, it is the
policy that started with the flurry of activity last January, the
executive orders that were aimed at killing the industry that underpins
our economy, the industry that won World War II, the industry that has
lifted 1 billion people out of poverty, 1 billion people around the
world in places like sub-Saharan Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and
the Far East. That is because of the shale revolution. That is because
of technology.
The Paris climate accords have absolutely nothing on the reduction of
harmful pollutants and emissions that private innovation has actually
done.
{time} 1230
And even knowing this, President Biden and Democrats in Congress have
introduced another tax on American energy that will continue to drive
costs up.
How many more Americans will be unable to heat their homes this fall
and this winter when Democrat tax initiatives make their utility bills
50 percent more expensive than last year?
Does the Green New Deal lobby group want America to follow in the
footsteps of the Europeans I just mentioned who have returned--
literally returned to burning wood chips in their homes?
Restarting coal plants, where was that in the Green New Deal? Where
was that in the Paris climate accord in COP26?
Make no mistake. These costs will swiftly be passed along to the 180
million Americans and 5.5 million businesses that rely on natural gas.
In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates
this fee will increase taxes by $6.5 billion and raise natural gas
bills an additional 17 percent, in addition to the inflationary
pressures already facing our economy. What an inexcusable error.
[[Page H7981]]
Instead of encouraging more U.S. production of oil and gas, House
Democrats have opted instead to cut government checks to favored green
special interest groups.
And by the way, what happened to the President's promise not to raise
taxes on Americans earning less than 400,000? It is laughable.
Americans are begging for lower prices. They are begging for the
government to simply allow free market principles to work; to allow the
companies that underpin energy to do what they do best, which is to do
it better, to do it more efficient; to do it cleaner and to not be
dependent on adversaries like Russia and China and other adversaries.
The crowning achievement of President Biden's energy policies will be
dependence on adversaries for our energy needs. In Maslow's hierarchy,
I couldn't think of something that is worse; dependence on OPEC oil as
he goes to Saudi Arabia asking for more production when we can do it
here better.
We only need to look at the reckless policies in Europe to understand
how bad this can be. We only need to look at the dependence that Europe
had on Russia that has now, in many, many ways, led to a crisis in
Ukraine.
Energy underpins everything. And I am tired of hearing that we are in
an energy transition. We are not. We are in an energy expansion.
Another billion people will be added to the population of this globe
within the next 15 to 20 years, one billion. Where is their energy
going to come from? Can those people afford electric vehicles?
Where does electricity come from?
These are the questions it would be nice to have in a transparent,
open, and realistic debate. In this energy expansion, I invite my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come to my district to see
the fact that my congressional district has more wind energy than the
entire State of California. Come see what we do with regards to solar.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PFLUGER. Come to my district to see that, in this energy
expansion, it is going to take every available source of energy. But
most importantly, it is going to take reliable energy, base-load
energy, sources that are primary that can provide the reliability.
We don't need to go the direction that Europe has gone, and we
certainly don't need to go the direction that our friends in California
have gotten used to with rolling blackouts.
And we don't need higher taxes. Every American family is struggling.
The solution is literally directly below our feet. It is literally at
the hands of the most innovative and experienced entrepreneurs,
engineers, hardworking patriots. It is here. We can provide that
reliability and reduce dependency.
I urge my colleagues to cast their vote for the American family, for
the senior on a fixed income, for the small business owner, and for
energy security.
And let me issue a warning. If we continue down this path, it will
end in energy poverty right here in this country; and those that will
be affected most are the vulnerable in our population, the ones that
are disconnected from their energy companies; the ones that can't
afford to do anything because energy costs are so high.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8749 which would
strike the new tax on natural gas, and get us on a path, once again, to
energy dominance, energy security and reliability.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I remind my friend, Mr. Pfluger, that this bill is about separating
loans. It is not about the energy policy, although I will address some
of his remarks in a second.
This is about the some 14,000 people that have taken advantage,
clearly of consolidating loans, but since that point, there has been
some disruption in their marriage. So we now have people, as I
mentioned earlier, that have been divorced for 17 years, still burdened
by a student loan of their ex-spouse and, in that particular instance,
an ex-spouse who had been abusive and continues to refuse to pay his
share of the loan.
So this gives the spouse who was in the abusive relationship, the
spouse who can't find the ex-spouse to help take care of this joint
loan, the ability to separate, take care of their own loans, and take
advantage of other programs that we, in Congress, the administration,
Democrats and Republicans, have put into place, like the public loan
forgiveness.
If you are working for the government, in some instances, you can get
credit for that service. Many of these people have been unable to take
advantage of that. So that is what this bill is about. That is what
this rule is about.
Now, as to my friend, I would say to him, you know, gas prices--I
don't know about Texas, maybe Texas has higher gas prices than
Colorado. But in Colorado, the gas prices have dropped a buck 30 to a
buck 50 over the course of the last 4 months, to the point where it is
under three bucks.
Madam Speaker, I refer my friend to the article in The New York Times
and that I will include in the Record titled: ``U.S. Gas Prices Have
Fallen for 91 Straight Days, a Relief for Consumers.''
[From the New York Times, Sept. 13, 2022]
U.S. Gas Prices Have Fallen for 91 Straight Days, a Relief for
Consumers
(By Isabella Simonetti)
The price of gasoline continues to fall steadily, easing
pressure on American consumers as the cost of filling a tank
continued to tumble from record levels reached earlier in the
summer.
Gas prices fell 10.6 percent in August, which helped
moderate still-sky-high inflation, Tuesday's Consumer Price
Index report showed.
The energy index, which tracks gasoline and electricity
among other energy sources, dropped 5 percent last month, as
electricity and natural gas prices rose.
After peaking at $5.02 in June, gasoline prices have
dropped for 91 straight days, and the national average stood
at just over $3.70 a gallon on Tuesday, data from AAA show.
But analysts point to a few reasons this streak of declines
is unlikely to continue.
Because they're determined by oil prices, gasoline prices
are also susceptible to a wide range of challenges, like
hurricanes that knock out drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and
efforts to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine by
curbing its ability to sell crude on the global market.
While gas prices are down, the overall energy index still
remains up 23.8 percent over the 12 months that ended in
August. Electricity prices alone jumped 15.8 percent,
representing the largest 12-month increase since August 1981,
the inflation report said. The jump in electricity prices is
largely attributable to the high cost of natural gas, said
Laura Rosner-Warburton, an economist at MacroPolicy
Perspectives.
As winter approaches, other fuel prices could influence
inflation data. The cost of heating a home with natural gas,
the most common source of home-heating fuel in the United
States, is expected to jump more than 25 percent from last
year, to $952 for the six months from October through March,
according to the National Energy Assistance Directors
Association.
``You would expect that a hard winter could create a
significant increase in demand in price of natural gas,''
said Bryan Benoit, U.S. national managing partner of energy
at Grant Thornton. ``And then of course all of this is
further exacerbated by what's going on with the war in the
Ukraine.''
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would also say to my friend from
Texas, as it relates to inflation, the gentleman is correct. There has
been, on a year-over-year basis, a jump of about 8 percent, 8.3
percent, I think he mentioned. But since the beginning of the year,
that has fallen dramatically.
Of course, over the summer we saw deflation in a couple of months,
and the most recent inflation report in August was it rose .1 percent.
So, annualized, that is a 1.2 percent inflation rate now because we are
seeing prices drop, particularly in the energy sector.
So as much as my friends on the other side would like to wish that we
had inflation, it is going away because we have been able to pass
legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, which takes a good look
at both climate responsibilities that we have in urging and
incentivizing towards renewable energy. But it also has a huge piece in
there to allow us to negotiate prescription drug prices and bring those
down.
So I would say to my friends on the other side, this bill is about
dealing with loans, consolidated loans that now need to be separated.
But on the subjects brought up, I can tell you that inflation is
dropping
[[Page H7982]]
based on the most recent reports, and gas prices are falling.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, we did address some of the issues that
we have and the concerns we have regarding the bill that is in front of
us. But we also offered a previous question because we should be
talking about energy.
The American public is concerned about energy independence and what
is happening with energy; how they are going to cool and, in my case,
in Minnesota, how we are going to heat our homes. It gets cold in
Minnesota, and people are concerned about how they are going to heat
their homes this winter and what they will have to cut out of their
family budget if prices continue to rise on heating their homes.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Armstrong) to discuss it even further. And it is cold in North
Dakota, too.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, it is actually pretty nice in North
Dakota right now, but we are on our way to winter.
Saying gas prices have lowered 91 days in a row is a whole lot like
giving a medal to an arsonist for helping put out a fire he started.
Gas prices are not lower than when President Biden took office, and
other energy prices are continuing to rise.
And I want to see the report that says inflation has gone down
because I have seen it has gone up in the most recent numbers to 8.3
percent. I think there was very great dueling chryons going on as we
are celebrating an Inflation Reduction Act that does nothing to reduce
inflation while the stock market is tanking, and we get a new report
that inflation is actually going up.
But I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we
can consider commonsense policy that would reverse the decision by 220
Democrats in this Chamber to tax American energy producers and raise
prices on consumers.
Democrats frame their price-increasing $1,500 methane tax as a way to
reduce emissions, but the small and medium oil and gas companies in
States like mine were already taking steps to reduce pollution in an
economically viable way. These small and medium companies are the ones
that drive energy production, particularly in North Dakota, and are
going to be double-regulated from the wellhead to the market.
The structure of the methane program is unwieldy; it is burdensome,
and it will only serve to increase prices for consumers. And we have
seen just that.
In New York, a typical customer's electric bill is expected to
increase by 29 percent from last year--29 percent.
Ratepayers in New Hampshire saw the price of electricity double over
the summer.
With one in six families falling behind on their utility bills, and
winter right around the corner, the last thing we need are policies
that make it more expensive to produce energy in the United States. We
need to take the handcuffs off domestic producers and deliver
affordable, clean, and reliable energy.
In any rational place in the world, California's energy policies,
where they are demanding electric vehicles by 2035 and, 2 days later,
ask people to not charge their electric vehicles, and the energy
policies of our allies in Germany and other countries in Europe that
are seeing the highest utility rates of any civilized country in the
world should be a big, red blinking stop sign.
But we are not in a rational world. We are in Washington, D.C., and
instead of taking the time to reflect and take reasonable steps to
ensure that our country doesn't go down the same path as these
other places, we double down on policies that will not work, and they
have the added benefit of not actually doing anything to clean up the
environment.
Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to defeat the previous question so we
can go back and deal with an energy policy that is based on reality and
not ideology.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
With respect to the bill that we have before us and the rule that we
have before us involving the separation of these loans, I would just
say there was a woman named Angela who is on the hook for nearly
$200,000, she has been divorced since 2016.
What she owes is five times what her initial loan was because of this
consolidation of loans. And she suffered from domestic violence and has
had her credit score drop like a rock. She is faced with crippling
debt. And until we are able to uncouple and decouple these joint loans
through this separation loan act, she is going to continue to be
burdened by something that really is not her responsibility.
That is the bill we are here to really debate and discuss, S. 1098.
And obviously, the rule is to allow its debate on the floor of this
House.
This weekend, I was out walking precincts on Saturday--going back to
the energy discussion that we are having. And at one of the houses was
a young man getting his electrical engineering degree at the Colorado
School of Mines. And he didn't really recognize too many of the
candidates.
But he did say that he was familiar with the Inflation Reduction Act
because it is the first time we have done anything of any real
significance for a long time to deal with climate change, and he was
very appreciative of that. A gentleman who doesn't have an affiliation;
he is not a Democrat, he is not a Republican, unaffiliated. But he was
aware of the substantial policy changes and investments we are making
to deal with extreme climate that we face all across this country.
I am glad it is nice in North Dakota right now. But across the
country, we have seen wildfires at times that nobody has ever
experienced before. We have seen terrible floods, and we continue to
see the ocean rise.
{time} 1245
There are so many pieces to that Inflation Reduction Act dealing with
improving our climate and dealing with the change that I certainly was
proud to have supported it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
for closing.
Just before I get into my formal remarks, I just want to mention, we
did a quick Google search, because I know that my colleague from
Colorado just mentioned the dropping gas prices earlier in his
comments. We did a quick Google search, and in 2019, the gas prices in
Colorado were $2.14, and they are currently in 2022, $3.70. So those
gas prices, while you may say they are going down a bit, that is a
significant increase from 2019.
Madam Speaker, S. 1098 is well intentioned, but there are other ways
to accomplish this goal effectively. The current bill will not help
victims of abuse for a year or more. The Republican bill would help
them now.
The bill we are debating today includes vague language that creates
loopholes that would allow the administration to spend billions of tax
dollars on broader loan forgiveness without justification and
oversight. The Republican bill closes this loophole to ensure that
those who really need the help are the ones receiving it.
We owe it to the victims of abuse to have a straightforward and
efficient process to help them, and we owe the taxpayers to protect
their tax dollars.
Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and encourage Members to do the
same, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I compliment my friend or her Googling talent, because I am sure that
is true. The situation that we faced is gas prices shot up to about
4\1/2\ bucks, and they have dropped now almost to $3, or in places
across the State, less than $3.
But, obviously, in Colorado, we are enjoying a very good economy.
Virtually everybody is working. We have an unbelievably low
unemployment rate. So we feel gas prices are going in the right
direction, prices generally are going in the right direction, and there
are a lot of people to credit for that, starting with the President of
the United States.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for joining me here today to
speak on the rule and the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act.
[[Page H7983]]
Over the course of the Joint Consolidation Loan program, more than
14,000 borrowers participated. It seemed like a simple consent. Joint
consolidation loans allowed for couples to have one single monthly
payment with a lower interest rate, but Congress never provided a way
for individuals to separate their loans if and when the time came
necessary; whether it is an abusive relationship where there is
domestic violence, economic abuse, or you simply can't find your ex-
spouse to have them help carry the burden.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle who claim they want to
help these borrowers, the opportunity to help them is right here, right
now. Borrowers who have experienced physical and mental abuse from
former partners who now refuse to pay their student loans, like my
constituent from Wheat Ridge, say this legislation would set them free.
Supporting this legislation is the right thing to do to help borrowers
who for years have been stuck in these joint loans with no way out.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous
question.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 1361
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 8749) to repeal the methane emissions and waste
reduction incentive program for petroleum and natural gas
systems. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy & Commerce; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 8749.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________