[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 157 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5144-S5147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          AFFORDABLE INSULIN ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                                 Energy

  Mr. CASSIDY. Madam President, I am constantly struggling that when 
people say there is no consensus in Washington, DC, there is often 
consensus. It is just a question of a different means by which to 
achieve the goals and consensus. If I were to say that we would want to 
have increased national security, lower global greenhouse gas 
emissions, a booming economy, and energy security, everybody would 
agree. The difference is how we achieve those means. And so what this 
process is, is to give the American people the opportunity to judge 
what is the best set of policies that will allow us to achieve that 
which we are speaking of.
  Clearly, there is a nexus, a connection--you put them all together--
between energy security, national security, the economy of our country 
and the economy of a family, and whether or not a country is lowering 
or increasing its contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions. This 
talk will be about that nexus between energy security, national 
security, global greenhouse gas emissions--how do we decrease them--and 
the economy of our country and the economy of a family.
  Now, I am from Louisiana--I think that is pretty well known; the 
senior Senator from Louisiana--and we are privileged to host many of 
the facilities of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that connection 
between energy security and national security.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, for those who do not know, is where 
we have salt domes full of oil, millions of barrels, so that if ever 
there is another embargo, like there was in 1973, where Middle Eastern 
countries were attempting to punish the United States, we would have 
enough in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that we could draw from 
and we could preserve our national security and our economic security--
again, that nexus between energy security, national security, and the 
economy of a country and the economy of a family.
  President Biden has decided to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
to lower the price of gasoline. I am all for lowering the price of 
gasoline, but if you think about it, drawing oil from a Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve is basically the same as pumping it out of the ground 
if it is in West Texas or off the coast of Louisiana. One is just oil 
that has been produced and put in a salt dome, and the other is being 
produced naturally.
  So rather than increasing production on Federal lands, the President 
made the decision to just draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
Unfortunately, we are now at the lowest level of reserves since 1984. 
To the degree--and it is a great degree--that our national security 
depends upon being energy independent, we have lowered our

[[Page S5145]]

Reserve to the lowest since 1984, which is to say that we are less 
secure in terms of energy and therefore less secure in terms of our 
economy and less secure in terms of our national security.
  The President needs a plan to refill that from domestically produced 
oil--period, end of story--and the swing production of that is going to 
be production on Federal lands, such as that off the coast of 
Louisiana.
  Where does that leave us? Unfortunately, President Biden's energy 
plan is such that the Biden administration has set the record for the 
fewest oil leases on Federal lands in the first 19 months of his 
office. Both Presidents Obama and Trump approved over 10 times the 
number of leases as the Biden administration has over the same period.
  So while Russia is attempting to blackmail the rest of the world by 
their energy production; where we have drained our Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve down to its lowest levels since 1984; where Europe is paying 
record prices for oil and natural gas, which may bring on a recession-
depression there, which, of course, hurts our economy, this 
administration has had the fewest leases on record, and Obama and Trump 
had 10 times as many in the same period. This is hurting our energy 
security, which means it hurts our national security, which means it is 
going to hurt the economy of our country and the economy of a family.
  My gosh, just ask what they are paying for their utility bills and 
what they are paying to fill up their tanks. Ask what they are paying 
at the grocery store, which is very dependent upon the supply of 
natural gas and oil in order to keep those prices lower. They would say 
they are hurting. This anti-energy policy has hurt across the board.
  By the way, I think the rationale for not issuing those leases is 
that in some way, if the United States does not develop our own oil and 
gas resources, magically, global greenhouse gas emissions are going to 
decrease. That is the superstition of those who favor that policy--
except, unfortunately, logic. You can't ignore facts.
  A national laboratory has said that if you are speaking about oil, 
that which has the lowest life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions is the 
oil produced off the coast of Louisiana, which is far lower than the 
oil that we import from other countries.
  If you are really concerned about lowering global greenhouse gas 
emissions, it is the environmental standards that we use in our country 
to produce our national resources--and, by the way, creating our 
American jobs--that have the lowest life cycle carbon emissions.
  So that completes our nexus. We spoke about energy security related 
to national security, which in turn creates better jobs and a better 
economy for us all and actually has the effect of lowering global 
greenhouse gas emissions. That is our nexus.
  Unfortunately, this administration's policy is hurting American 
families, as they pay more through inflation; hurting our national 
security, as our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is at its lowest level, 
and therefore our energy security; and also contributing to increased 
global greenhouse gas emissions, as we have to import from countries 
without our environmental standards. Because we are unable to increase 
our production and supply, say Europe--they are burning coal instead of 
our oil and gas and, with that, increasing global greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  There are some bright spots. On a bipartisan basis, the Congress just 
passed the Kigali Amendment, which recognizes--which is a form of 
hydrocarbons which were used in refrigerants. The use of this will 
lower global greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Congress just passed 
that. So other countries that persist in using older technology which 
increases global greenhouse gas emissions will be at a competitive 
disadvantage because Congress passed that. So in the midst of this kind 
of bad news--boy, it is just not working out the way it should--we 
actually have an example of how we can make it work better.
  I am an advocate for a carbon border adjustment, not a carbon tax. I 
think carbon taxes are the wrong way to go. Let me explain. If we have 
a carbon border adjustment where the U.S. chemical industry, using our 
environmental standards, using natural gases of feedstock, everything 
we have done and invested in to lower global greenhouse gas emissions--
we are competing with countries in Asia, specifically China, which 
don't use those measures, which pollute far more than we, but because 
they don't use their environmental standards, they have a lower cost of 
manufacturing. We are competing against cheaper goods, but they are 
cheaper precisely because they are producing more global greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  The Kigali Amendment tells us what to do. If we had a carbon border 
adjustment where we say that this is the carbon intensity of our goods 
that are produced, and if a country in Asia--say, specifically, China--
has a carbon emission profile that may be 5 to 10 times higher, if they 
want to import their goods, they would have to pay a fee based upon how 
their carbon intensity is greater than ours.

  That is great. One, it is going to help us with our economy. Our 
workers who are losing their jobs to those in China because they don't 
enforce their environmental standards and we enforce ours and therefore 
our cost of production is higher--those jobs begin to return. It will 
be cheaper to produce here after all if China is forced to pay for the 
pollution they are putting into the atmosphere. It creates more jobs. 
That is good for Americans and good for our economy. It strengthens us 
relative to the Chinese, who are using their profits to build a bigger 
army. It is good for greenhouse gas emissions. Now China is actually 
incentivized to lower emissions as opposed to now, where they have no 
incentive to do anything but to increase their emissions.
  So we begin to decrease global greenhouse gas emissions. That is good 
for our national security. The stronger our economy is and the relative 
weakness of the Chinese economy means that we are better able to invest 
relative to the Chinese, which means that we are better able to spread 
Western values as opposed to the Chinese values, which involve bribery, 
which involve corruption of government, which involve coercion. Just 
look at what has happened in Hong Kong if someone thinks the Chinese 
Communist Party is a better system of government. We are able to export 
our values and push back upon theirs.
  So if we are trying to have a policy, as I said at the outset, which 
combines the best instincts of the right and the left, where we all 
want to have energy security, national security--we want to have a 
better, stronger economy for working Americans, and we want to lower 
global greenhouse gas emissions--the Kigali Amendment, which passed on 
a bipartisan basis, gives us an example of how to do that.
  Let's make a strength of our environmental regulations, and let's 
make others pay for their ignoring those same regulations. In so doing, 
we begin to attract jobs back here for Americans to strengthen our 
economy, lowering global greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening our 
energy security, our economy, and therefore our national security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Ohio.


                   Remembering Max and Ben Morrissey

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to join me in 
honoring Max Morrissey and Ben Morrissey, two brothers who went to work 
on September 20 at the BP-Husky oil refinery in Oregon, OH, and never 
returned home.
  In the tragic explosion at the refinery that night, Max and Ben were 
fatally injured. At 34 and 32, their lives were cut short. Max and Ben 
were loving husbands and fathers, proud union steelworkers with Local 
1-346, and lifelong Ohioans. They spent their lives serving their 
families, their community, their union, and their country through their 
dedication to their jobs and through Max Morrissey's distinguished 
service in the U.S. Navy. Their work at the plant powered our State, 
our economy, and provided for their families.
  Family was everything to Max and Ben. They shared a dedication and 
commitment to each other, to their parents, to their wives, and to 
their young children.
  On Friday, I visited the steelworkers hall. I had the honor of 
speaking with the Morrissey family and Max and

[[Page S5146]]

Ben's steelworker brothers and sisters in Local 1-346. From all I 
learned about Max and Ben, I know their memories will live on. I know 
their legacies will be upheld by those whom they loved and who loved 
them so.
  We talked about this pin I wear, a canary pin given to me years ago 
at a Workers Memorial Day in Lorain, OH, by a steelworker honoring the 
workers who lost their lives on the job, working and supporting their 
economy and building a life, a future for their families.
  This pin is a depiction of a canary in a birdcage. If you know labor 
history--and I know the Presiding Officer from Georgia knows this--the 
mineworkers used to take the canary in a cage down into the mines. If 
the canary died from lack of oxygen or toxic gas, the mineworker got 
quickly out of the mine. He had no union strong enough in those days to 
protect him and no government that cared enough to protect him. A 
strong union changed that because of worker safety laws and because of 
the labor movement.
  This tragedy reminds us that our work to protect workers and make our 
workplaces safer never ever ends. No worker should ever have to worry 
about not returning home at the end of the day. No family should ever 
have to be concerned about that, not steelworkers like Max and Ben, not 
first responders who rush to their aid--no one.
  I want to recognize those first responders--the steelworkers, the 
fire brigade, the Oregon Fire Department--those first responders at the 
scene whose bravery made a difference.
  Today, we rededicate ourselves to Max and Ben's example of dignity of 
work, importance of family and community. Our thoughts are with the 
Morrissey family, with all those who knew and loved Max and Ben, and 
with those who worked alongside them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend the Senator 
from Ohio for always being willing to speak out on behalf of important 
people all across the country. I agree with him that organized labor 
for literally decades has always protected working people. We need to 
bear that in mind as we sort through the issues that confront us on a 
regular basis. So I thank him for his comments.


                Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act

  Mr. President, I rise today to actually celebrate a major 
accomplishment for thousands of Americans who have been trapped for, 
many times, decades in exploitative joint student loans.
  This is an issue that is actually near and dear to me because I have 
been working on it for 7 years, since hearing from a constituent way 
back in 2015.
  Sara from Northern Virginia was part of a group of student loan 
borrowers who entered into something called a joint consolidation loan, 
which allowed married couples to combine their student debt into a 
single loan. The truth was, though, that sounded good, but Congress 
didn't allow anyone to unwind those loans in the event of a divorce or 
an abusive relationship.
  So finally, in 2006, Congress got rid of the whole program. But when 
they got rid of the whole program, they didn't retroactively create an 
option for those folks who had entered into these joint consolidation 
loans between 1993 and 2006.
  So when my constituent Sara had divorced from her husband when she 
was living in Texas, she was still responsible for this loan. So all of 
the debt that had originally been his suddenly fell upon her shoulders. 
The divorced husband stopped paying the debt. Yet she was still 
responsible, and she, Sara, had to continue facing the consequences.
  Now, she was a single mom of two, a public school teacher. Sara was 
financially on the hook for her defaulting husband's student debts. Her 
credit suffered dramatically. She even thought she was going to lose 
her teacher's license.
  Now, she did a lot--great researcher. I talked to her a couple times. 
After looking for a way out, she found that the only way to fix this 
problem was for an act of Congress.
  Well, she contacted my office, and we found out that this was not a 
one-off circumstance, but, literally, there were thousands of Americans 
all across the country who had fallen into this trap. A lot of them 
were domestic violence survivors, who, even though they had gotten out 
of an abusive relationship, were still stuck with paying off the debts 
of their abuser. Many of these were people who were victims of 
financial abuse and, again, completely responsible for a loan, in many 
cases, that they had never even taken out.
  Others were unable to save for retirement, for their kids. We had a 
lot of teachers who were otherwise eligible for the public service loan 
forgiveness programs, but because they had entered into the joint 
consolidated student loans, they suddenly weren't eligible.
  So we did some research and spent some time looking into it. In 2017, 
I introduced the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act to solve this 
problem and find a way for, oftentimes, innocent borrowers to get out 
of these consolidations.
  Now, starting back in 2015--I have got to acknowledge, it took 7 
years. Something that was this much of a no-brainer shouldn't have 
taken that long, but I am proud to be here today and report that we did 
get it through Congress on a bipartisan basis.
  Here in the Senate, I am grateful for a lot of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. I am grateful for the Presiding Officer. We 
actually passed it on a unanimous basis, and in the House we passed it 
with a broad bipartisan coalition.
  That is a testament to what a critical, commonsense fix this is--one 
that will actually change the lives of thousands of Americans, 
literally, overnight.
  Now, since we introduced this law the first time, my office has heard 
from so many Americans who are desperate to get this done.
  I remember hearing from Chris from Indiana, who said he spent over 16 
years thinking about this loan every day and waking up at night trying 
to create a strategy to pay this loan off.
  He got back to us and he said:

       For the first time, I may be able to put my mind at peace.

  We heard from Sharon, who is a seventh grade teacher, whose former 
partner was totally unresponsive on meeting their obligations on this 
joint consolidation. Now, she said:

       I don't have to do this anymore. I get to live my life.

  She gets to actually retire this year because, once President Biden 
signs this law, it will immediately relieve her of this obligation.
  Or Jessica, who said:

       I am finally about to be free . . . of one last way my ex 
     controls me.

  Again, I can't imagine entering into this arrangement and then 
getting out of a relationship, often sometimes an abusive relationship, 
and that ex still trying to control this person by not meeting their 
share of the obligations. It just was wrong.
  Next, Amy, who falls into the category of otherwise--because, I 
believe, she was a teacher, she was able to get public service loan 
forgiveness and worked for years on something she should qualify for, 
but if you had entered into one of these joint consolidations, you 
didn't get this benefit.
  So Amy said:

       I've never been able to take advantage of a single debt-
     relief program.

  This bill will change that, obviously in terms of public service 
loans but also in terms of some of the proposals that President Biden 
has put forward.
  All these people have been asking for is a chance to not unduly bear 
the joint burden of a program that even the Congress and the Federal 
Government decided in 2006 wasn't fair, but when we unwound it, we 
didn't unwind it, literally, for thousands of people who had fallen 
into this program between 1993 and 2006.
  Now, we are through the House. We are through the Senate. We still 
have to hit one thing. And while the White House has indicated that the 
President supports this legislation, we have to get it signed right 
away because, when we think about these teachers and nurses and other 
folks who met their goal of what they have to qualify in critical areas 
to qualify for public student debt forgiveness, you know, the truth is, 
if they are going to get that benefit this year, they have got to make 
that application by October 31.
  So before Halloween, these folks and countless others are waiting for 
them to simply apply for a right that, in

[[Page S5147]]

many cases, they should have been granted 5, 10, 15 years ago.
  And as I said, many of the folks in this category are public school 
teachers. They are government workers. They are nurses. They all have 
met the otherwise, oftentimes, stringent requirements for public 
service loan forgiveness, but this law has to be a law in time for them 
to be able to timely apply for this relief before Halloween.
  So I am hoping--the President has indicated he supports this bill, 
but the President has got to sign this law as soon as possible so 
borrowers can finally experience freedom from financial and domestic 
abuse, freedom to control their own financial future, and freedom to 
enjoy the exact same benefits that other teachers and public servants 
have across the country.
  I would like to close by saying that, this week, I actually had a 
chance to call Sara, who originally brought this issue to my attention. 
She told me that, without this law, and even if she had continued 
making all of her monthly payments for her divorced husband, it would 
have been impossible for her to get rid of this debt in her lifetime. 
She would literally have been tied to her ex-husband, and she left 
Texas to get away from that ex-husband, to move to Virginia. She would 
literally be tied to that former spouse for the rest of her life.
  For Sara and for literally thousands of other borrowers impacted by 
this program, it is time for the President to sign this law and provide 
these borrowers the relief they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Recognizing Humboldt, Kansas

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this evening, I want to highlight a 
community in my State of Kansas that is a model for rural towns across 
our State and around the country. It is timely because, just yesterday, 
the New York City mayor joked that my home State of Kansas has ``no 
brand'' and then chuckled at his joke. I had planned to give this floor 
speech before the mayor of New York City used Kansas as a punch line, 
but now it seems a little more fitting and means even more.
  Located in Allen County, KS, Humboldt is the home to about 2,000 
residents. Like many small communities in rural America, Humboldt was 
facing declining population numbers as businesses moved away and 
buildings on Main Street were abandoned. Even the locally owned 
newspaper, which began business in 1864 and was the State's longest 
continuously running paper, the Humboldt Union, had to close its doors.
  However, in the last couple of years, Humboldt has defied the odds. 
The vacant buildings on Main Street now boast thriving businesses and 
welcoming storefronts. Since 2020, Humboldt has gained a coffee shop, a 
variety of bars and restaurants, a fitness center, a microbrewery, a 
grocery store, a hotel, and the Humboldt Union has been reestablished. 
Even as the pandemic created new challenges for many small businesses, 
Humboldt's businesses were able to persevere.
  In January, the travel desk of the New York Times selected Humboldt 
as a top destination in the world, alongside places like Greece, 
Australia, and Argentina--pretty ironic now.
  The majority of growth and economic development in the community can 
be attributed to a civic organization called A Bolder Humboldt. This 
group was formed a few years ago by leaders like Paul Cloutier and is 
still going strong today.
  Paul recently took me on a tour of downtown with the mayor, Mayor 
Nobby Davis, to see firsthand the renovations being done and to meet 
the owners of small businesses that are reshaping the town square.
  Paul said:

       I've lived in a lot of big cities, and the thing I loved 
     about them was that they had complete neighborhoods, with a 
     grocery store and a dry cleaner's and a bar and little 
     restaurants, which is basically what a small town is or used 
     to be.

  A Bolder Humboldt is working to rebuild that ideal--that ideal 
American small town--for the 21st century.
  I visited a cafe and a coffee shop owned by Josh Works, who is also 
involved in A Bolder Humboldt. His father owns B&W Trailer Hitches, and 
he set a standard during the recession in 2008 to prioritize and care 
for his staff and his community.
  In addition, the community has rebuilt 10 blocks of the downtown 
streetscape with the help from a local business, Monarch Cement 
Company. Owned and run by Walter Wulf, this is a 110-year-old business, 
and it is a staple of this community.
  The city has also developed Southwind Industrial Park, with the 
latest addition of Murphy Tractor and Equipment Company, providing new 
jobs for locals and new residents.
  Humboldt has also gained fame as the hometown of Biblesta, which is 
an annual festival taking place this weekend, that has been going for 
six decades and features the world's largest Bible-themed parade.
  Each year, City Manager Cole Herder addresses graduating high school 
seniors and presents them with mailboxes in the school's colors--black 
boxes with orange lettering. Each box has the student's name and 
``Humboldt, Kansas'' stenciled in orange letters. Inside, there is an 
invitation. He appeals to students to pursue an education and new 
experiences, but he also encourages them to consider their hometown of 
Humboldt as the place to establish their careers and raise their own 
families.
  The community of Humboldt is a success story, and it is a role model. 
It demonstrates how teamwork, creative thinking, hard work, treating 
others with respect, and caring about the future of your community can 
make a positive difference for your city, the State, and for our entire 
Nation. That is our brand in Kansas.
  I am proud to recognize the efforts of Humboldt with what we have 
called the Building Better Communities Award.
  Today, in the U.S. Senate, I offer my congratulations and my 
gratitude for the kind of leadership and effort among all residents of 
the community to see that Humboldt is a good place to live today and, 
perhaps even more importantly, a great place to live tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.


                             Vote on Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 6833.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________