Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, and votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Next week, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider S. 1098, the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Representative David Price and Senator Mark Warner to provide relief to borrowers who need to separate their joint consolidation student loans. This legislation would greatly benefit the individual borrowers who are most in need of relief, including victims of abuse.

The House may also consider a continuing resolution. As all of us know, on September 30, at midnight, the government's ability to fund and operate goes out of authorization; therefore, it is necessary for us to take action before September 30, and we may do that next week.

The House may also consider legislation to reform the Electoral Count Act from Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Liz Cheney.

The House will consider bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

As is usual, as we come very close to ending and then have a substantial period of time, October and the first and second week in November for the election, it is common that we may have other pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, available and necessary to pass. We will notify Members as soon as we have that information.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Obviously, that is a good question and a good thing to have.

The appropriators are working through the administration's list of anomalies, which I know there are three or four items dealing with health and also dealing with Ukraine and a couple of other matters. I don't have that list in front of me, but the answer to my friend's question is that they are trying to get that together.

I think they are pretty close. I will talk to Chair DeLauro. I presume she is in conversation with and discussions with the ranking member, as well, but I am sure that that is the case.

There is also, I believe, money also being asked for for disaster relief that may well be in the CR.

The gentleman referred to the discussions that occurred in the Senate between Senator Manchin and Majority Leader Schumer. Obviously, we are going to see what the Senate does. I don't know what the Senate is going to do. It is one of the reasons there has been a discussion about the Senate moving first on that and discussions with the Senator about when they were going to move. I think that is under discussion.

If I might add, I want to make the gentleman aware--and I know he is--but I want to make the Members aware that we will need to be here for such time as it takes us to pass the continuing resolution so that government will continue to operate. It is essential for the economy, essential for our national security, and essential for the employees, but it is also essential for all those whom they serve on a daily basis.

I have told my Members in some discussions about what we are going to do the last week in September. I have told my Members, and we also would make clear to all of our Members, including the Members on my friend's side of the aisle, that they ought to be making sure that the last 3 weekdays of November and that Saturday they ought to keep clear so that if, in fact, we need to work during those periods of times--and my expectation is we are going to have to--that they not be canceling events that they scheduled. So, being on notice, I think, will be fair to them and fair to anybody that we are scheduling with.

I could not agree with the gentleman more. I think I am probably just as frustrated.

I know the members of the Appropriations Committee are as frustrated as anybody in this institution. As someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, we ought to be passing bills in a timely fashion. We ought to be passing them one at a time. We ought not to have these gigantic omnibuses that nobody knows about.

Both sides have had to prepare two omnibuses at the end of the year to fund government because we haven't passed individual appropriation bills in a timely fashion either through the House or the Senate or through the House and the Senate to the President. So, I agree with the gentleman entirely.

I agree also that we ought to give everybody as much notice as we possibly can. I will tell the gentleman, frankly, I was hopeful that we would have passed the CR this week. For reasons that are, I think, obvious to everybody, we haven't done that. But I am hopeful that we can do it sooner rather than later and don't have some September 30 crisis that we seem to always create.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I, obviously, anticipated that question. I thought about it, and I want to say to the Members my thoughts that I, frankly, talk about all over the country.

We passed a number of bills. Inflation is hurting our people. Inflation was not caused by President Biden or this Congress. Inflation was caused by the pandemic.

Inflation hurt businesses severely and hurt employees severely. In a bipartisan way, we voted as that pandemic started. As we saw the broad impacts of that, we, in a bipartisan fashion, stepped in to help. It made a very big difference.

I start that way because the representation of some is that somehow we, by passing legislation, have caused this inflation. The OECD nations, the economically developed countries of the world, have all had inflation. As a matter of fact, the average OECD nation has a 10.2 percent inflation rate. As the gentleman knows, ours is 8.3 percent.

Mexico didn't have any of the bills that we passed and had an 8.7 inflation rate. The Netherlands that didn't have an American Rescue Plan has a 13.6 percent rate of inflation. Sweden, a small and very successful country, didn't have an American Rescue Plan and has an inflation rate of 9.8 percent; Austria, another strong economic country, 9.3 percent; Denmark, the country of my father's birth, 8.9 percent.

And you say: So what? The ``so what'' is that we have seen a global inflation. I haven't mentioned some of the other countries in Asia who have inflation rates, as well. I simply say that so both parties and all Members understand the consequences and pain of inflation at the pump.

The gentleman in some of the discussions we have had has pointed out that prices have gone up. I have not heard him say that the President has taken certain action, and it has come down about 35-plus percent over the last 6, 7 weeks from $5.02 as an average down to somewhere around $3.60.

Is that low enough? It is not. It has been much higher. It was higher in 2008 under George Bush. But it needs to come down further. We will continue to work on that.

We passed a number of pieces of legislation. I mentioned the American Rescue Plan took 48 percent of America's children out of poverty who were in poverty; not 48 percent of America's children, but 48 percent of America's children who were in poverty were taken out by the American Rescue Plan.

None of us are wearing masks on this floor or around the country when we gather together and get in rooms close to one another. Why? Because we got 250 million shots in arms.

We also have people struggling for a variety of economic reasons primarily brought upon them by the pandemic, so we put money in their pockets.

We have one of the fastest growing economies. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. We have a country that is doing well.

The gentleman mentions the stock market declining. It did. Why did it decline? Because we had the pandemic. Inflation resulted from that, and the Federal Reserve--as was true under Ronald Reagan when unemployment went to 10.5, 6, 7, 8 percent because Paul Volcker was slowing down the economy to defeat inflation.

Inflation is harmful, particularly to people who are elderly and on fixed incomes. So, I want the gentleman to know that we empathize with that, and, therefore, we are distressed.

When we passed a bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, not a single Republican voted for it.

And there is absolutely no denial on the reality that is going to bring Americans' costs down. Not only that, it kept 13 million people who were going to fall off insurance on the Affordable Care Act--which I know the gentleman's party does not support--but 13 million Americans who had healthcare insurance as a result of the American Rescue Plan, it was going to stop on December 31, and we continued that.

We put on legislation that would bring down prescription drug costs and allow companies to sell drugs to Medicare in a negotiated way. We negotiate, as the gentleman knows, and I don't know whether the gentleman thinks that policy ought to be stopped, but we negotiated for prices with veterans' healthcare. Now we are going to do it with Medicare. We wanted to do it for everybody, but the Senate Republicans would not agree to that.

We believe that the infrastructure bill is going to really help bring down inflation, create jobs, and expand our economy. We believe the CHIPS and Science bill is going to do the same. Only 13 on the Republican side voted for the infrastructure bill, which was, I think, a bill that would have helped inflation by making supplies better. The energy portion of the Inflation Reduction Act is going to bring down the cost of energy. It is going to create competition on energy, and fight climate change. I lament the fact that not a single Republican voted for the Inflation Reduction Act.

Even if you reject the fact that it is going to reduce inflation--as I think you probably do, I don't want to anticipate what you do, but that is my guess. There are literally scores of economists who believe it is going to bring down inflation.

As importantly, the committee who looks closely at this--scores of economists say it is going to bring it down. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget say they believe it is going to bring down inflation. I don't want to project that it is going to bring it down a half a point, a point, 2 points, 3 points, 4 points--I hope it does. I think it was certainly worth a try.

None of your colleagues either in this House or in the Senate--down the aisle--gave it a chance. We passed it anyway under a process, obviously, that allows just Democrats in the Senate to pass something under a process called reconciliation.

I want to tell the gentleman that I have apprised the committee chairmen of the bills that you have talked to me about. I have asked them to look at them. Frankly, I cannot tell you I have gotten a response from each one of them, but we are giving them attention.

Obviously, we want to know what our committees think about not only your legislation, our legislation--our legislation, that is, bipartisan legislation. We lament the fact, I will tell you, very frankly, Mr. Speaker--we lament the fact that our Republican colleagues in all four of the bills I have just mentioned, which are designed to grow the economy--the CHIPS bill, the bipartisan infrastructure--19 Senators voted for the infrastructure bill and helped put it together with President Biden and Senate Democrats. Lamentably, only 13 of your colleagues chose to vote for it. I am glad they did, but it was over the advice and counsel of their leadership. That bill clearly was embraced by the American people and incorporated policies, essentially, that President Trump said in 2016 he was going to recommend and have the Congress adopt. It didn't happen in 2017. It didn't happen in 2018. It didn't happen in 2019, and it didn't happen in 2020.

I say to my friend, we think all four of those bills are going to have a very positive impact on our economy, on growing our economy, ensuring supplies of basic goods, and bringing down inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I can't see the chart. Could you tell me what it says so I know what the gentleman is talking about?

Here?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me say, the gentleman dismisses what other countries are doing or he says they are doing bad things and therefore they have inflation.

Every country has inflation. Why? Because the pandemic shut down the world. It shut down the markets. It shut down the production of supplies. That is why. People had to stay home and they weren't out producing and making things.

We kept a lot of people employed. We spent trillions of dollars doing it, which were bipartisan bills signed by Donald Trump. Trillions. As soon as Donald Trump left, all of a sudden the other party--his party, the Trump party, decided it is over. It wasn't over for the American people.

Kids were not in schools. People hadn't been given shots in arms yet. People were really hurting. Those 48 percent of the children in poverty were still in poverty, but it was over. No more bipartisanship. It is another President, so we are going to blame him.

That is politics over people. What we did is people over politics because we knew people were hurting. We passed legislation to give them help. Every Republican, Mr. Speaker, voted no.

We voted to help them gets shots in arms. Every Republican voted no.

We voted to get their kids back in school to make their schools safe and healthy. Every Republican voted no because they wanted to bleat about inflation.

The reason they don't like these figures is because these are the economically successful nations of the world, many of whom have inflation higher than we.

The gentleman is absolutely right. We need to get inflation down. There are 126 economists that say that the Inflation Reduction Act will reduce inflation, reduce healthcare costs, and reduce energy costs.

Now, the gentleman and I have had this discussion about his energy bills, which they think will be the salvation. They always think: Drill more, life will be better. I get it. Louisiana is a State that wants to drill. I get that. We use that product. It is an important product, and we are going to continue to use it. That is why I have no criticism of that.

In the last bill that we passed, which is really going to fight the climate challenge that we face--there were four 1,000-year floods in four different communities in America within 30 days of one another.

The West is on fire, literally and figuratively. Climate challenge is real. Every Republican voted ``no'' to invest in meeting that challenge head-on; every Republican, House and Senate, Mr. Speaker.

I can't read the chart, but 13 percent inflation is too high. I go to the grocery store almost every weekend. I live alone. I don't buy a lot of food at any one time because I am traveling a lot and here a lot; don't want it to go bad.

So I get it on the prices. I get it on gasoline prices. They are tough. That is why we passed a food and fuel bill. The gentleman from Louisiana voted ``no.'' The leader of the Republican Party, Mr. McCarthy, in the House, voted ``no'', and the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted ``no.''

They wanted to make sure that we had competition. That is the free market system. That is what brings prices down. If you have a monopoly, you can charge anything you want if people need the product.

Now, I won't go through the statistics because the statistics are we are producing more energy today than we produced 2 years ago. I read those statistics. I am not going to bore the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, with them again.

They don't bore me because it shows that--when the argument is the reason we have inflation is because we are not producing energy, the reason we don't have as much energy is because companies made a rational decision. What was that rational decision?

In March and April of 2020, people started staying in their homes. They stopped buying gas and other products, petroleum products, and, as a result, corporations made a reasonable judgment. We are not going to produce more capacity.

So, when we got out of the inflation, we are still not doing that. But we are doing more than we did some years ago, as those statistics that I read to the gentleman three or four times, so I won't read them again.

But the industry, as I have also told the gentleman, owns 9,000 unused permits to drill onshore; 37 million acres offshore; which can be permitted, ready to go.

So when you simply ignore and pretend that somehow Joe Biden, the President of the United States, is responsible for worldwide inflation, and dismiss the pandemic--I don't think I have heard one time, Mr. Speaker, the Republican whip mention the pandemic as a cause of the inflation. It is all about energy.

I beg to differ with the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I think, honestly, the American people need to know that.

Yes, the stock market had a rough tumble. Why did it have a rough tumble? Because the Federal Reserve, the chairman of which was appointed by President Trump, responsibly, along with his board of governors, responded to try to get this inflation under control and bring it down.

I don't know whether the gentleman supports that action or not. Ronald Reagan supported that action; although he did not appoint the chairman of the Federal Reserve that did it.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to fight for the people and put them above our politics, or even our own personal economic interests, by passing the American Rescue Plan; by passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill; by making sure that America can be seen as a country that makes it in America; chips, investing in science for the future, for the people and, yes, the Inflation Reduction Act, which the gentleman and his party has misrepresented over and over and over again with something they know is not the truth.

They project 80,000 new people going after average Americans. They know that is not true, Mr. Speaker.

After years of trying to defund the people who collect the revenues from our people so everybody pays their fair share, and those of us-- and I say of us--who are doing well, pay our fair share, and the people who make billions, who pay less of a percentage, in many respects, as Warren Buffett said, than those who work for them.

Yes, we want taxes fairly enforced, Mr. Speaker. We don't want anybody paying an unfair share because somebody is not paying at all.

The IRS will, after those 10 years of accretion of employees, have as many employees as it had back in the 1990s; trying to make sure it can, in fact, enforce a fair system that provides the revenues that the Federal Government needs to protect, preserve our people's welfare, economy, and national security.

I don't think I made that comment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, to your last statement, the unions. What were the unions trying to do? They were trying to keep teachers healthy. They were trying to keep kids healthy. Because we were telling people, don't congregate. Don't get all together.

They were trying to keep kids out of school whose HVAC systems, heating, ventilating systems were not up to date and couldn't transfer the air in a clean, healthy way.

So we gave them billions of dollars. Yes, we spent a lot of money to make our people safe, to get people back to work, to get kids back in school, and it worked. They are back in school.

None of us are wearing a mask. We congregate now. We all get together. Hardly anybody, if anybody, some people who have particular vulnerabilities are wearing masks. God bless them. It worked, and the Republicans voted ``no.''

Now, I want to go to this energy issue because they are Johnny-one- note. Inflation is caused by administration policy on inflation, gas prices, and energy production. But the fact of the matter is he ignores that inflation is happening in a lot of places.

Mr. Speaker, in Denmark, they are pretty energy independent with renewable energies and not relying on supply chains per se. Their inflation is higher than ours because it was a global phenomenon. Their economies were assaulted. Ours came back faster and better.

Why? Because we invested in our people.

Now, let me go to a simple fact. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, average production--that means over 4 years for Trump--for Donald Trump was 10,968,000 barrels per day; for Joe Biden it was 11,185,000 barrels a day. That is more, not less, than the average under Donald Trump. But it serves their political interest, Mr. Speaker, to somehow project to the American people that Biden has shut down the energy industry which is why you are paying more.

I explained that the energy companies did, in fact, cut production. It was a rational business judgment. People were driving less and buying less petroleum.

There is still concern. Most of them are seeing that there is going to be an alternative energy that is going to be required if we are going to make sure that this globe does not burn up with the people with it.

He also says--I don't have the report in front of me, so I am going to wing it--that no one earning under $400,000 per year got a tax increase as a result of the bill the gentleman alludes to.

If CBO says--and I will read the report--that $20 billion is going to be received from that category, it will be because somebody, whether they are making $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, or $400,000, is not paying their fair share pursuant to laws that we adopt--not because we put new taxes on them but because they are not paying the taxes that are due.

I don't have the CBO report in front of me, so I am opining because it certainly wasn't because we have new enforcement officers, unless those enforcement officers find that the people to which the gentleman refers are not paying their fair share.

By the way, it will also apply to the people who are making billions and not paying any taxes, much less their fair share.

Let me repeat that energy figure again because I think he will probably go back to energy because that is what we do almost every colloquy. More energy is being produced under Joe Biden than was produced under Donald Trump.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think we are probably pretty close to closing.

I would say this, Mr. Speaker. I think the American people are in the process of making a judgment. On our side, we see things as pretty positive in terms of the response to the policies that we have been adopting without any significant help from our Republican colleagues, but they will have a chance to vote and decide.

We have passed legislation, as we said we would do, for the people-- not for the sake of politics but for the sake of children, families, the young and old, and, yes, even the rich and poor.

I want to comment because I urge my Republican friends to be precise in their conversations with the American public. There are not 80,000 revenue auditors or agents included in this bill that we talked about on bringing inflation down and which economists say will bring inflation down.

Our Republican friends say they want to do that, but they vote against bills that will bring down demonstrably, and without possibility of denial, costs for people, health costs for people, prescription drug costs for people, insulin, which costs about--it is single figures, and we capped it at $35. That is about 400 percent profit, but they are now paying $300 or $400 or $500.

Now, luckily, because we could pass it with Democrats, seniors won't be paying that. They will be capped at $35. But millions of other Americans, because the Republicans would not support it in the United States Senate--we passed it here--will not get the benefit of that cap. They will be paying far above justifiable prices for insulin.

We are producing energy. The argument is specious that somehow this inflation is caused by our cutting back on energy supply when I just read a figure, subject to dispute. Maybe next week I will hear, no, that figure is wrong. Maybe. We are producing more energy than Trump did--not Trump himself, but the country--during Trump's Presidency.

I urge, Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends to tell the American people the truth. Yes, there are some more agents because there are people not paying their fair share. If you have an audit, and they say you are not paying your fair share, and you pay more, isn't that what we expect when we pass tax bills, that people will pay pursuant to what the law says, whether they make $100,000 or $100 million or $100 billion? I don't guess anybody makes $100 billion in a year.

We ought to be honest with the American people. Give them the facts, and then they will make a decision, but tell them the truth.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, there are 80,000-plus additional, which will get back to the 20 years ago level of employment in the IRS. The IRS has been reduced in personnel in all categories, not just enforcement agents, but in all categories, which will undermine their ability to serve the public and collect taxes so that we all pay our fair share and so people who don't have accountants and who don't have ways and means to avoid taxes are treated fairly themselves.

Everybody ought to be treated fairly. If we don't think they are being treated fairly because of the law then we ought to change the law, but we ought to tell the American people the truth.

There are not that many enforcement agents. They are in so many different categories in the IRS to make sure that the IRS can successfully do its job and answer people's questions about what, when, where, and why they have to do things pursuant to law. That is what I meant, not that the 80,000 people are enforcement agents. They are not. They are not. It is a far lower number than that.

But we know that there is over $100 billion--I think it is a much larger figure than that--in taxes that are owed under the law that are not being paid, which means that the tax rates need to be higher on others than they ought to be.

That is what this bill gets at. In other words, this bill, the inflation reduction bill, is more than reducing inflation. I am sorry that my Republican friends made a determination it was not a bill they could support to help bring down inflation, but that was the judgment they made.

I think they want to bring down inflation. We want to bring down inflation, but when we present a bill to the floor which does it, we would hope we would get support on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is my friend and the majority leader of the House.

As it relates to the continuing resolution that I know the gentleman said may come up, we haven't had any details that have been shown to us on what that might look like in terms of other items in addition to some kind of short-term or even what the duration of a short term would be.

If there are any dates that the majority has already started thinking about that would be included in a continuing

resolution, any extraneous items--there is some other funding that has been thrown about. There has been talk about Senator Manchin, that there may be some agreement that Senator Manchin would have some kind of permitting reform. I am not sure if that would be a part of a continuing resolution or a stand-alone bill.

If the gentleman could provide any clarification on any of those items that we haven't been privy to in conversations, I yield to my friend.

Obviously, we will be staying in touch on that. Hopefully, Ms. Lofgren will have some conversations with Ms. Granger about details because we haven't seen those yet. We surely would like to be more involved in those discussions.

As we are more in the first half of September, obviously, this would all be at the very end of September. Hopefully, we wouldn't wait until the midnight hour. We are all aware of the deadline.

Hopefully, we can get something brought, ideally agreed upon by both sides, which we are nowhere near right now, but at least to have more direct conversations well in advance of the deadline, so we are not here watching the clock strike midnight wondering.

Hopefully, we can start seeing actual language next week so we can either get to a place where we are in agreement or try to resolve those areas of disagreement.

As the gentleman was talking about the calendar and other items that may be coming up, I noticed there were no conversations about any of the legislation that we have been talking about bringing to the floor to address inflation.

We just saw Tuesday, as the President was holding a party at the White House to celebrate inflation, we saw, yet again, more devastating news on the inflation front, to the point where the markets tanked during that party at the White House.

We have a package of bills that would help bring down inflation, bring down energy costs, and help those families who are struggling as we get ready to face another cold winter. There are expectations right now by all the experts that energy costs will go up again because we have limited supply here in the country.

As we identify those bills and yet not see any of them being listed for debate on the House floor, can we try to get some kind of direction on whether this majority will work with us to bring bills to the floor to address these real problems that are hurting families all across the country?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of different bills the gentleman mentioned. Each one of them, by the way, when you rack them up, adds up to trillions of dollars in new spending. If trillions in Washington spending were going to solve the problem, then we would have no inflation.

Obviously, it has gone the opposite direction, and it is going the opposite direction because of the trillions of dollars in new spending if you go down the line. Obviously, the gentleman went through all of those things, and I would like to respond to a number of them because it just doesn't mesh with the realities of where our economy is today.

If you look at the numbers--and we can talk about other countries-- other countries have passed bad policies that have wrecked their economies. You can see Europe right now finally having a renewed debate on energy policy because they passed some really foolish energy policies that are destroying their energy economies and making them more dependent on Russia, for example, to get their oil and to get their natural gas. They are finally waking up.

A lot of them shut their nuclear plants down, which is safe, sound nuclear energy. They wrecked their economies. They are starting to reverse that. I am glad they are finally waking up and reversing course.

It seems like right here in Washington the failed policies that President Biden has put in place, they want to double down on. When you look at the results of it, that is why we get where we are which is double digit increases in food costs that our families are facing. Electricity costs over 15 percent higher just over the last year, and it is about to get worse because the bill that the President was celebrating at the White House had another increase in taxes on natural gas, which will raise those costs even higher.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, electricity rates are 15.8 percent higher than last year.

In America. This is all in America. Families that we represent are facing the burden of all of these policies that started in Washington that are ultimately ending up taking money out of their pockets.

When you go to the grocery store--if you can afford to get there--if you find the food on the shelves, it is 13\1/2\ percent higher. We have seen the list, whether it is eggs, dairy products, bacon, some of them are 30 percent higher individually, but it adds up to about 13\1/2\ percent more that you are paying at the grocery store.

Mortgage rates. If somebody is trying to become a first-time home buyer, which is part of the American dream, today it is 110 percent higher to get a mortgage than it was a year ago. Most economists, including many Democrat economists, point to the trillions in spending in Washington as the reason for that. Families have figured this out and said: Stop the madness.

Yet, again, at the White House in the most tone-deaf thing I have seen in a while, the President is having a party celebrating a $730 billion increase in taxes and spending at the exact same time that the market is tanking because of the inflation created by all this spending.

To finish it up, transportation costs are 11.3 percent higher. That is what is happening in America.

Again, Europe did a lot of these same bad policies. They figured it out, and

they are starting to reverse course. They just got rid of their Prime Minister in England because of what they did to wreck their energy economy.

We brought bills--as I shared with the gentleman over months--we have brought a number of bills forward that would solve these problems, and not one of them has been scheduled for a vote on the House floor. We want to address this problem. We don't just sit back and go: Well, it is happening in other countries, so let it stay racking up in America. It doesn't need to.

These are all unforced errors that are the result of failed policies, and instead of stopping the failed policies and working with Republicans to turn it around and lower these costs, it seems like there is a desire to just double down and talk about trillions more to spend.

If spending was solving the problems, then we would have none of these problems. The problems have gotten worse with each multi-trillion or multi-hundred-billion-dollar package of legislation that has come out of this body.

At some point, I would hope that the other side would look and recognize and say, okay, forget about Europe and Asia. They need to look in the mirror and say, why did they create some of their problems?

We can do something about these problems. We brought those ideas forward, and every single time we have been told no, which must mean that this is okay. Because this is not okay to us, and there is a way to reverse it.

If just spending more money and having parties at the White House to celebrate that spending while Rome is burning is where we are going to be, I think there is going to be a day of reckoning on that. I don't think the country is comfortable where we are. And when the idea is to just keep spending more money and act like--maybe it is another $5 trillion--what is the number that is going to finally get us out of this mess? If it was trillions, we would be there already.

Maybe, just maybe, we need to look at going the other way. Stop paying people not to work, for example, when everybody is looking for workers. Unfortunately, the IRS is looking for 87,000 more people. And as CBO just confirmed, a lot of that is going to be going after hardworking families, families making under $400,000 a year, even though we were promised on this floor that wouldn't happen.

We brought an amendment to ensure that President Biden's promise would be upheld. We brought an amendment that would say and ensure no American making under $400,000 would see their taxes go up with these 87,000 new IRS agents. The majority rejected that amendment. Literally, the day of the vote, the Congressional Budget Office came out and confirmed that it is over $20 billion in new taxes.

That bill is going to cost families making less than $400,000. Those families are already struggling. They would love to save up and buy a new house. They can't even afford to get to the grocery store to pay 13\1/2\ percent more. If they try to go get a mortgage today, they are going to be paying more than double for that mortgage than they were a year ago.

At some point we have got to stop these failed policies that are causing these problems. Go look at what some of these other countries are doing to finally reverse course because they are, and they need to, but so do we. I would hope that we would bring some of those bills to the House floor because we could start reversing these horrible trends now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, first, to clarify, it wasn't me who said that the IRS agents, this new army of 87,000 IRS agents, would be going after people to collect $20 billion more in taxes who were making less than $400,000.

It was the Congressional Budget Office who put in their report the day of the vote that that is exactly what would happen, is that those IRS agents would, in fact, be going after people making less than $400,000, to the tune of $20 billion in new taxes.

We brought an amendment to stop that from happening, to say they can't go after those people making less than $400,000, which is what the President promised. The Congressional Budget Office report was right there, saying $20 billion is what they would pay in new taxes. The majority rejected the amendment. So clearly, the intention was to have those IRS agents go after them.

Again, those weren't my numbers. That was the Congressional Budget Office. If there is a dispute the gentleman has, take it up with them. But they were the ones who came out with that report the day of the vote. Maybe that was why the bill was rushed through. But we pointed that out, and no one disputed that the Congressional Budget Office put those numbers out there.

But the President still kept saying, don't worry. They are not going to go after them, not a dime. But CBO said $20 billion in new taxes those low- and middle-income families will pay. We tried to stop it. The majority rejected it.

Now, to go to the oil and gas comments the gentleman made about President Biden, you would think, listening to your comments, that Joe Biden was John D. Rockefeller, and he is drilling everywhere. Well, let's first----

And I won't say the gentleman did, but as the gentleman talked about all this production and drilling that is going on and all this oil that is coming out, it was Joe Biden who said, as a candidate, ``no more drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.''

Then he carried out policies to back that up and stop drilling.

We have pointed out many times, major companies in America that want to increase production, as the gentleman did say, that they are not increasing production. They tried, and they have been rejected on the permits they would need.

You can't just go drill a new hole tomorrow. Every well ultimately depletes. We all know that. That has been going on since man invented the ability to drill for oil in the world. So as oil depletes, you need to get new permits to go into these areas. The Biden administration, over and over again, rejected those new permits.

So there are leases out there. Again, a lease might be like you have a car. You have got a car in your driveway. Well, if you don't have an engine in the car, the car is not functional.

If you have a lease, the lease doesn't do you any good if you can't get the permits to build pipelines. We have talked about the pipeline problems as this administration, over and over again, has blocked new pipelines.

How do you move the oil? How do you get the permit to go and explore for more?

So what the President did--again, if we were just maxed out on drilling here, why did the President get on Air Force One and fly 5,700 miles to Saudi Arabia to beg them to produce more oil? They said no because they don't have the ability over there.

The President called Vladimir Putin and asked him to drill for more oil. Putin said no.

You don't need to ask those countries to produce more oil because we have it here, but there is documented evidence, over and over, where this administration has said no to permits, no to the ability for us to produce more of our own energy.

So what happens? The price goes up. They are talking about, during this winter, the inability for people to have home heating oil. So they are importing it from countries like Russia because they are not allowing more production here, where companies are trying to produce more and being turned down by this administration.

The Secretary--I think it was the Secretary of Energy--when asked, what is your plan to produce more in America, she started laughing. It is not a laughing matter, but that has been the attitude of this administration.

To finish up on the point where the gentleman started talking about all these bills that we voted against, starting with the $1.9 trillion spending bill that this administration came right out of the box with. As the economy was starting to turn around, and people were starting to bring workers back, trying to get workers back, a $1.9 trillion package of bills came forward to pay people, in part, not to work, to stay at home; made it harder for people to get workers back.

But what it also did--and this is something we brought up during the debate--checks were being sent to people.

Well, we pointed out that checks were going to end up going to people in prisons, and we were told that wasn't going to happen. Just like with the 87,000 IRS agents, when CBO debunked that. Don't worry; nobody in prison is going to get checks. Turned out later, the Boston bomber got a check.

Who knows how many billions of dollars went to prisoners to be paid-- taxpayers are already paying for them to be housed, to be fed, to get healthcare. But then they also got checks, actual checks in stimulus money. We had an amendment to stop that from happening.

But ultimately, yes, we voted against those things because we wanted to see our economy back open.

When there was this idea that everybody had to stay home, that wasn't the case when we started last year. In fact, many States started to open again. There were some States that stayed shut down.

By the way, you can see a massive movement around the country, where New York State alone lost about a million people who moved to States like Florida because they didn't want to be shut down anymore when there was a State that was open, following safety protocols, protecting their people, but allowing people to live in freedom again and live their lives.

So people moved out of States, the shut down States like California and New York and moved to States that were open. You can see the numbers, and they are dramatic numbers.

So not every State handled it the same. But the States that opened were

having a lot more success in protecting their people at the same time, but the States that stayed closed had devastating consequences.

Not to mention what we saw with children being shut out of school, the learning that wasn't happening. Those are devastating numbers we are seeing today because this administration changed the science--and that is documented--changed the science over at CDC to cater to the unions who wanted to keep schools shut down. So millions of kids didn't learn at the levels they should have, and those numbers are still showing up today, that those kids were left behind; lost a year or 2 years they will never get back because other kids were in school learning, when the unions wanted to work with the Biden administration to keep schools shut down.

So those are the things that we tried to address. None of those bills were allowed to come to the floor. But that is where we are.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, if Joe Biden wants to keep producing more energy, we are giving him opportunities, but he says no. He said ``no'' many times, and he campaigned on that. We will continue to push to bring those bills to the floor.

We are going to continue to push to bring bills to the floor to solve a lot of these problems that we have identified, and we have bills to address them. If the majority doesn't want to bring them up, I understand. That is the prerogative of the majority, but we are going to still keep talking about them.

We are going to still keep pushing every opportunity we can to bring down inflation, to lower energy costs, and to address so many of these other problems that people are still facing today.

If that single mom who is working as a waitress two shifts is going to be audited by some new IRS agent who is tasked, under the terms that we saw, with going out and generating that money, if the result of that is that she has to pay more money, it doesn't mean she is cheating on her taxes. If all of a sudden an auditor is coming after you, who knows what kind of pressure they are putting?

But it is 87,000 more IRS agents tasked with going and generating not $20 billion. The $20 billion is just for the people making under $400,000. It is over $250 billion that some of the numbers show that they have to generate, meaning they are going to have to go out and find that from taxpayers.

That doesn't mean every one of those people they audit is a tax cheat. It just means that person is going to now face an audit who otherwise is working two or three shifts to meet the demands of these higher costs that they are facing because of inflation.

We are going to continue fighting for those hardworking families and fighting to lower the burden on this government, take some of that heat off so they can spend more time at home with their family, not working two or three shifts or worrying about the next audit they are going to face from a new IRS agent who is told to go generate more money. Hopefully, we can address that. We will continue to push for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to be honest with the American people. It was the administration that used the 87,000 number. If that number should be lower, I would love to hear what that number would be.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. If the gentleman has a number, please tell me because that is what we heard from the administration.

We will continue to tell the truth about these policies. Clearly, there is a disagreement on many of them, but that is why we have this debate. I look forward to continuing it with the gentleman.

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

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.