[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     motions are considered as withdrawn.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.

                          ____________________