David E. Price

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life and work of Professor William (Bill) Leuchtenburg, who celebrated his 100th birthday on September 28 and will be feted by his friends in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the hometown we share, this weekend. Bill is a distinguished scholar, devoted educator, and friend and counselor to many, including myself.

In fact, reading Bill's ``The Perils of Prosperity, 1914-32'' as an undergraduate 62 years ago helped attract me to completing a history major at UNC-Chapel Hill. In the 1980s, I assigned successive editions of ``In the Shadow of FDR'' to my classes in American Political Thought. In the meantime, I had gotten to know Bill personally through his fellowships at the National Humanities Center and his assumption-- after a distinguished 30-year career at Columbia University--of a Kenan professorship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bill won the Bancroft Prize and the Parkman Prize of the Society of American Historians for ``Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932- 1940.'' with Samuel Eliott Morrison and Henry Steele Commager, he took the two-volume ``The Growth of the American Republic'' through two editions. He dealt with key aspects of the Roosevelt era in ``The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt'' and ``The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy.'' His published articles range from ``The Needless War with Spain'' to ``Court Packing Plans,'' ``Jimmy Carter and the Post-New Deal Presidency,'' and ``The Boston Red Sox, 1901-1946.''

Bill's long, varied, and impactful bibliography earned him his first Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Prize for distinguished writing in American history of enduring public significance, awarded by the Society of American Historians. But the printed record only begins to reveal Bill Leuchtenburg's impact on America's self-understanding and public life. By virtue of his effervescent personality, boundless energy, and strong ethic of civic engagement, Bill's range of activities and their impact are remarkable even for a 100-year life span. His political engagements go back to the 1940s, when he was a state director for the Americans for Democratic Action, field staff for the A. Philip Randolph Institute, and an organizer for Richard Bolling's first campaign for the U.S. House. In 1987, he joined Walter Dellinger and John Hope Franklin in testifying against Robert Bork's appointment to the Supreme Court. He served over many years as an election analyst and commentator on presidential inaugurations for national networks. He has advised and appeared in many of Ken Burns' acclaimed documentaries on topics including the Civil War, the Roosevelts, the Vietnam War, National Parks, baseball and country music.

When Bill's international colleagues honored him at Cambridge University upon the 30th anniversary of ``Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal,'' they entitled the session ``In the Shadow of Leuchtenburg,'' a takeoff on the title of the book on FDR's impact that he took through six editions. Indeed, Bill casts a long shadow with works translated into multiple languages, a teaching and lecture circuit that includes most of the U.S. and Western Europe, Russia, Israel, and South Africa, and a huge worldwide network of students, colleagues, collaborators, and admirers.

I am privileged to count myself in that circle of colleagues and friends, and North Carolina is exceedingly grateful and proud that this preeminent scholar and exemplary citizen has

lived and worked among us these past 40 years. I extend to Bill and his wife, Jean Anne, hearty congratulations and good wishes for health and happiness in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of S. 1098, the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act.

I am the author of the House version of this bill and have introduced it every Congress since the 115th, always with a Republican cosponsor.

I would like to start my remarks today by thanking the Members, past and present, who have helped bring us to the floor today.

I thank our former colleague Bradley Byrne of Alabama for his cosponsorship of the first iteration of this bill. I thank Congresswoman Haley Stevens and other current bipartisan cosponsors; Senators Mark Warner, Marco Rubio, and John Cornyn, who recently steered this bill to passage in the Senate; and my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Richard Burr, who expedited the review of this bill by his committee.

This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 15 of this year.

I also thank my good friend Chairman Bobby Scott and his staff. They have vetted this bill and worked over this bill very carefully. He is an outstanding leader of the committee, and he has been a longstanding supporter of this bill. He included it, in fact, in various versions of the Higher Education Act.

I also thank the staff, entrepreneurial staff, who picked up on this problem from casework years ago and devised a legislative solution. That would be Kate Roetzer and Nora Blalock of my staff initially, Janssen White and Elizabeth Adkins more recently, and other personal and committee staff, House and Senate.

Thanks, too, to the advocates, people affected by this problem, who have come to our offices and our town meetings and relentlessly advocated for relief. A number of these advocates are our guests in the gallery today.

The Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, or JCL for short, is simple in its intent but significant in its impact on thousands of student loan borrowers who have waited for relief for far too long.

From 1993 to 2006, the U.S. Department of Education issued joint consolidation loans to married couples where both borrowers agreed at the time to be jointly liable for repayment. As you might expect, this proved problematic if that couple ever needed or wanted to separate the loans.

Congress wisely eliminated this program in 2006 but with one critical oversight: Congress did not provide a means of severing the existing loans, even in the event of domestic abuse, economic abuse, or an unresponsive partner. There was, in other words, no grandfather clause.

As a result, there are borrowers nationwide who remain financially liable for their absconded or abusive or uncommunicative spouse's portion of their consolidated debt with no legal options for relief.

The bill before us would allow such borrowers to submit an application to the Department of Education to split the joint consolidated loan into two separate Federal direct loans. The joint loan remainder would be split proportionately based on the percentage that each borrower originally brought into the loan.

It was an unfortunate mistake not to grandfather in the severing of these loans with the 2006 cancellation of the program, so this bill is a long overdue, commonsense correction. Congress does occasionally make mistakes; in case we hadn't noticed.

Let me just illustrate to you what the solution means for the lives of borrowers.

I first became aware of this issue in 2014, 8 years ago, through constituent casework. My constituent consolidated his $25,000 loan with his ex-wife's $75,000 loan. After their divorce, the Department continued to collect on the combined loan from both parties, even though my constituent had paid off his portion of the loan. That is just one of the many examples that cover the spectrum of unpleasant situations with this shared debt.

Let's assume that one partner attended community college and the other an expensive private school, and their loan amounts are vastly different. When they consolidated their loans, they both agreed to be jointly liable for repayment. But say the partner who attended private school became unresponsive and stopped paying into the loan. That left the partner who attended community college saddled with their total debt, along with the partner's private school education cost.

We have also heard horror stories of couples who have survived abusive relationships but continue to remain tied to their partners through the loan. Former partners have exerted financial abuse by refusing to copay with their exes. In other instances, individuals are unable to get in contact with the copartner of their loan and are similarly left to shoulder the debt all by themselves.

These borrowers have seen their wages garnished and their credit scores ruined to the point where they cannot assist their own children in taking care of Federal student loans. This has become a generational impact.

These loan holders are often in punishing situations with no hope in sight for action to fix this mistake unless we pass the bill before us today.

This bill has been thoroughly vetted by the Department of Education, the House Committee on Education and Labor, and numerous checkpoints in the Senate. It passed by unanimous consent in the Senate a few short months ago. We have made accommodations all along the way, including Republican changes that I did not prefer, for the sake of getting the bill to the floor in both Chambers. With tomorrow's vote, it will go directly to the President's desk.

This is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. I believe it is the end product of a fair process that has withstood the rigors of legislative scrutiny. As far as legislative impact goes, this one is simple but profound in its impact on borrowers.

The Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act presents a rare opportunity for Congress to right a wrong, to correct an omission in its own legislative process. I urge that we do so. The bill offers a fair and equitable relief to borrowers who have suffered great hardship, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and to place the following statement from IFES in the Record.

Resolution of Support for Ukraine

The Board of Directors of the International Foundation for

Electoral Systems (IFES), meeting in Arlington, Virginia, USA

on this 15th day of March 2022, does hereby declare its full

support for the people of Ukraine, and the sovereignty,

independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The Board of Directors condemns the invasion of Ukraine by

the Russian Federation as a flagrant act of aggression and

violation of international law, including the Helsinki Final

Act and the United Nations Charter.

Since Ukraine became an independent country more than 30

years ago, its people have repeatedly chosen the path of

freedom and democracy. Over the course of three decades, IFES

has been honored to support Ukrainians in their efforts to

strengthen and safeguard their democracy. The Board of

Directors of IFES affirms its continued solidarity with the

Ukrainian people, who are bravely resisting this unprovoked

assault on their freedom and democracy.

The Board of Directors pays tribute to the contributions of

current and former IFES staff in Ukraine who have helped to

build Ukrainian democracy. We stand in solidarity with these

IFES staff, with the Central Election Commission of Ukraine,

and with our civil society partners and the members of the

public institutions with whom we work. The Board of Directors

further recognizes the important work of those fighting for

democracy and human rights in and around Russia and Belarus,

especially those who have worked to oppose the invasion of

Ukraine.

The IFES Board of Directors eagerly looks forward to the

day when peace in Ukraine, and respect for the sovereign and

democratic rights of the Ukrainian people are restored. We

pledge to stand with the people of Ukraine now and in the

future.