Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1098) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize borrowers to separate joint consolidation loans; and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1361 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.''

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

based on the most recent reports, and gas prices are falling.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Scott, for continuing to find ways to collaborate with his members and others to ensure that we respond to the crux of opportunity in America, and that is education.

I am so grateful to be able to stand and support S. 1098 and to take this brief moment to thank my fellow alum, David Price, for being persistent in this legislation and serving the American people over the years that he has done. I had a chance to get a second bite of the apple. David was here and then came back. I have enjoyed every moment of his commitment to opportunities for Americans over the years, including housing and transportation and homeland security, and I certainly want to say to him that the American people are better for his service to this Nation. I thank him so very much.

I am grateful to finally be able to say, Chairman Scott, to a constituent who I saw over the weekend that called the number of the bill--most times, constituents don't know bill numbers. They said: ``I need you to support S. 1098.'' Obviously, this is something so many of us have been looking to because we have heard this from our constituents.

I am very grateful that this legislation now allows a married couple who has previously consolidated their Federal student loans, because we were allowed to do that--many people thought that was a good thing to do, to submit a joint application to the Department of Education to sever their loan, allowing each former spouse their proportional responsibility. Each former spouse would still be obligated for a share of the loan, but their share of responsibility would be benchmarked to the proportion of the debt that they brought into the consolidated loan. Without loan severance, if a spouse refused to pay their share, the other spouse remains responsible for full payment.

This is important legislation as it relates to divorce and domestic violence or economic abuse. Bearing the risk of the full responsibility for a consolidated loan after divorce can dramatically restrain a spouse from moving on with their life, from supporting their children, from getting a house, from feeling safe.

The Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act also addresses the especially volatile situation of former relationships in which an individual was subjected to domestic or, as I said, economic abuse.

As a sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act that became law in March of last year, I am especially concerned about women who have experienced physical, mental, sexual, emotional, even psychological abuse at the hands of a spouse or partner. S. 1098 allows them to separate from toxic relationships, get away from the economic abuse, and retain or maintain their credit so that they can go forward. This can also apply to a male who may be suffering from the same situation.

Two married borrowers of Federal student loans could combine their debt into a single loan, but we can also come back now to ensure that they can separate it. This is an important step forward.

Mr. Speaker, we enthusiastically add this to the component of making sure, under the Violence Against Women Act, that there is an expanded understanding of what happens when one spouse abuses another or the idea of economic abuse.

Just as an example, when one spouse is not being timely, is not being responsive, for whatever reason is not able to be found, then the credit of the remaining spouse being dutiful is completely, if I might use the term, mutilated.

I am eager to ensure that this bill is passed. I certainly acknowledge the Senator from the State of Texas, Senator Cornyn. We have worked together on other matters.

I will let everybody know this bill is bipartisan, and I will let everyone know that what we will be doing is ensuring that people can restore their lives. They can stand up again and be able to pay their debt.

As I finish, I am stunned by people who don't want to see us move forward for people to pay their debt. They can pay their debt. Let us all support S. 1098.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1098, the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act allowing a jointly-held loan debt to be separated.

This legislation would allow a married couple, who had previously consolidation their federal student loan debts, to submit a joint application to the Department of Education to sever their loan, allotting to each former spouse their proportional responsibility.

While each former spouse would still be obligated for a share of the loan, their share of responsibility would be benchmarked to the proportion of debt that they brought into the consolidated loan. Without loan severance, if a spouse refuses to pay their share of the loan, the other spouse remains responsible for full payment.

This is very important legislation because it is a key to independence following a divorce. Without being able to sever their loan obligation after divorce, people are forced to continue interacting with their former spouse.

Bearing the risk of full responsibility for a consolidated loan after divorce can dramatically restrain a spouse from moving on with their life, both financially and emotionally, as they are forced to maintain communication with someone from whom they no longer want to be closely associated.

The Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act also addresses the especially volatile situation of former relationships in which an individual was subjected to domestic or economic abuse from the other individual.

As the sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act that became law in March of this year, I am especially concerned about women who have experienced physical, mental, sexual, emotional, or psychological abuse at the hands of a spouse or partner.

Thus, it is especially important that S. 1098 make it easy for women who have suffered from abuse to sever their loans, to help them sever their toxic relationships.

Indeed, S. 1098 allows one borrower to submit a separate application in the event that the individual has experienced domestic or economic abuse from the other individual borrower or is unable to reasonably access the loan information of the other borrower.

In the case of this occurring, the other non-applying individual borrower shall become solely liable for the remaining balance of the joint consolidation loan.

Joint consolidation loans were first created for the good of Americans to combat growing default rates.

Two married borrowers of federal student loans could combine their debt into a single loan.

While the legislation was intended to proactively accommodate these life situations, joint consolidation forms came with no guidance from the Department of Education for cases of domestic or economic abuse.

A divorce decree could not remove one spouse from the debt, nor could have any other agreement as both people were now legally responsible for the combined debt.

If an ex-spouse refused to pay their share of the monthly payment, the other spouse would have to make the entire payment themselves.

If a former couple wanted to make their student loan payments under a payment plan, both spouses would need to pay the loan under the same plan and provide their financial information.

If one of them failed to do so, they would both be denied access to the payment plan.

Because of all these loopholes, Congress eliminated access to joint consolidation loan applications in 2006.

However, it did not provide a way to separate responsibility for existing loans, even in cases of domestic violence, economic abuse, or an unresponsive partner.

With the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, we can now provide a way out for those facing domestic violence or economic abuse, as victims in this position face challenges beyond their own control.

As reported by the CDC, about 1 in 4 women and nearly 1 in 10 men have experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner during their lifetime.

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, between 94 and 99 percent of domestic violence survivors have also experienced economic abuse, which includes coerced debt and withholding access to money.

There are currently 776 borrowers with spousal consolidation loans, according to the Student Borrower Protection Center.

It is our responsibility to do right for these borrowers who fell victim to the consequences of previous legislation.

As the sponsor of H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act, I proudly support S. 1098's efforts to provide options for victims of violence, especially for women who are at a significantly higher risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

While I fully support the underlying intent of S. 1098, the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, I have concerns about the bill as drafted. The purpose of this bill is to protect student loan borrowers who consolidated their loans with a spouse but now seek to reverse this process. Yet, as written, this bill undermines that purpose.

I am concerned this bill will hurt the very borrowers we are trying to help. We never want to see a spouse, especially one that is a victim of domestic violence, forced to be financially tied to his or her abuser. We want to give these borrowers a way out. However, we also recognize that it is not only the abused spouse who may be applying for these new consolidations.

Under the Senate-passed language, when a borrower files for a new consolidated loan, he or she could potentially leave his or her spouse with the remaining balance. We must be cognizant of the fact that a borrower could use this new legislation as a weapon. This is why we need safeguards in place to ensure that both parties are not subject to potential abuse through the separation process and not just the one filing for a new consolidation.

Additionally, the Department of Education has stated that it will take 12 to 18 months to implement this bill. Given the urgency of the situation that many borrowers are in, this kind of delay is unacceptable. We need to provide these borrowers with a quicker way out of their joint consolidation loan. Yet, Democrats rejected the Republicans' solution that will give these borrowers an almost immediate separation without unnecessary paperwork that will bog down the process.

Further, I am concerned that this bill could be used by the Secretary of Education to stage an even broader takeover of student loans. It would be simpler and more straightforward to allow these loans, once separated, to remain with their current holder, but instead, this legislation attempts to drive as many of these loans as possible into the government-run Direct Loan program.

We have ample evidence to believe that the Biden Department of Education will take the inch given in this legislation and use it to go a mile. The administration's illegal expansion of the income-driven repayment program and Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, let alone Biden's student loan bailout, are evidence of that.

For example, the vague language included in this bill, namely, the authority for the Secretary of Education to allow for new consolidation loans if it is in ``the fiscal interest of the Federal Government.'' The Department of Education has not been able to provide clarity on what this phrase means or how it applies to this bill, but it has been used previously by this administration to force billions of dollars' worth of loans made by private lenders

onto the government's books. Moreover, the President's $1 trillion transfer of wealth from hardworking taxpayers to college graduates clearly illustrates this administration had no intention of protecting ``the fiscal interests of the Federal Government.''

We must not create any loopholes or back doors for the Biden administration to exploit. Transferring massive amounts of student loan debt to taxpayers is harming our economy and setting a horrible precedent for future borrowers, not to mention failing to solve the underlying problems in postsecondary education.

Because of these issues, Republicans have a solution that will allow student loan servicers to separate joint consolidation loans almost immediately, instead of having to wait over a year to receive relief.

Our solution is a commonsense and practical way to accomplish the same goal as this legislation but more quickly and efficiently.

Republicans are willing to work across the aisle to ensure borrowers are taken care of, but unfortunately, Democrats are more focused on opening more avenues for the administration to expand its radical loan bailout.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment to S. 1098 would establish a more efficient process for separating joint consolidation loans to ensure timely relief for borrowers, protect victims of abuse seeking to sever their financial entanglement with their abuser, and protect taxpayers by ensuring that the Secretary's authority is narrowly tailored to help those in need.

It allows borrowers to separate their loans immediately rather than having to apply for a new loan in the Direct Loan Program, a process that can take as long as 18 months to implement.

Moreover, it ensures that those who are victims of economic or domestic abuse can split their loans without opening up avenues for their abuser to game the system and inflict further harm on those we are trying to help.

This is a commonsense fix to a bill that all of us agree is well- intended but falls short of ensuring adequate safeguards for borrowers.

S. 1098 also fails to protect against the abuse of executive authority, something this administration has already proven it will happily do.

If we adopt the motion to commit, we will instruct the Committee on Education and Labor to consider my amendment to S. 1098 to establish a more efficient process for separating joint consolidation loans to ensure timely relief for borrowers that need it.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the amendment so we can provide timely relief to the borrowers who need it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider the solution Republicans have put on the table. Borrowers wanting out of joint consolidated loans should have the opportunity to separate, but the method we use to get this done is important.

S. 1098, the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, will take the Department 12 to 18 months to implement, far too long for some borrowers who are in urgent need of help. This legislation could also backfire on the very borrowers we are all working to help.

Additionally, this bill's sloppy and vague language could pave the way for even more Federal power grabs over the student loan system. Given what we have seen from this administration, we cannot open any doors to further student loan debt schemes.

Bottom line, S. 1098 delays support for borrowers who need assistance immediately, cedes more control to the Education Secretary, and fails to protect the borrowers and taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.