Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. 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.

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

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

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

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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.

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Daniel Albert Boryta, an exemplary North Carolinian who worked as a chemist for Cypress Foot Mineral Kings Mountain, North Carolina. Daniel is remembered by many not only for his bright smile and friendly demeanor, but also for his innumerable contributions to the field of chemistry. His bailiwick was producing innovative compounds that involved lithium. From creating solutions to extract lithium from salt brines in Chile to his patented lithium hydroxide compound that's still used in space exploration by NASA, Daniel's accomplishments are second to none. The impact of his work has made a profound impact upon society. Madam Speaker, I'm confident that generations of Americans to come will look upon Daniel's work, and the vibrant legacy that he has left behind, in pure admiration.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1456. I won't mince words: H.R. 1456 includes a Peace Corps payout. Section 16 of this bill gives injured Peace Corps Volunteers an arbitrary increase in Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) benefits--increasing the current deemed pay level that is used to calculate benefits from GS-7, step 1, to GS-7, step 5. No one has put forward a rationale for why this increase is necessary or appropriate for Peace Corps Volunteers. Not a single hearing has been held to discuss or examine this issue. In fact, the increased benefit level in H.R. 1456 is out of line with deemed pay rates for other volunteers. For example, Job Corps Volunteers have a deemed pay level of GS-2 and AmeriCorps Vista Volunteers are deemed GS-5. I would also note that tens of thousands of federal workers are at GS-7, step 1, or lower on the federal pay scale. But again, no one has explained why Peace Corps Volunteers should be deemed to have a higher GS level than these federal workers. Furthermore, this bill sets a terrible precedent for other programs that will inevitably ask for an increase in FECA benefits. Congress will have no basis to reject their requests if this proposal passes. And guess who will be breaking out their checkbooks to foot the bill of these benefit increases? Hardworking taxpayers. And I'm willing to bet they won't get an explanation either. I urge my colleagues to oppose this Peace Corps payout and vote no on H.R. 1456.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the American people are rightfully concerned about the ambiguity of the Biden Administration's ongoing negotiations with Iran. Are these negotiations being conducted in good faith? What concessions are being made? How would this deal impact America's standing within the international community and our ally, Israel? These are precisely the questions that are being asked, and yet, the only response coming from the administration is the sound of crickets chirping. The same can be said for Congress. The Biden administration has already expressed its intent to keep Congress in the dark about this potential nuclear deal. And according to new reporting, the Biden administration is trying to hide the facts on their ongoing negotiations with Iran until after the midterm elections to avoid scrutiny. Here is the thing, Madam Speaker, the administration is already required to submit information to Congress pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act or INARA. INARA requires that the administration keep Congress fully and currently informed of any new or amended agreement with Iran. Those words couldn't be any clearer. In 2015, many Members on the opposite side of the aisle voted for INARA, and yet, we have heard nothing but crickets from them about holding this administration accountable. If INARA had not passed 7 years ago, Congress could have found itself completely blind to former President Obama's deal with Iran at the time. Madam Speaker, 400 Members of the House, along with 98 senators voted to force President Obama to submit his deal to Congress for Congressional review. Given the profound silence as of late on these ongoing negotiations, are we to believe that good governance and effective oversight are no longer tenets of this body? Madam Speaker, we cannot let accountability and transparency become relics of a bygone era. That is why I have introduced H. Res. 1266 alongside my colleague from South Carolina, Representative Joe Wilson. This resolution of inquiry requests that President Biden turn over to the House copies of documents, memos, and other communications related to any initiative or negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program. It could also expose any side agreements--such as the episode of the Obama administration leaving cash on a tarmac in 2016--that are offered as part of negotiations with Iran. Today, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will be marking up my legislation, and the American people will find out who still supports increased transparency and oversight and who does not. Congress must do its job and exercise its explicit oversight authorities to hold this administration accountable. If this body upheld its commitment to good governance and effective oversight 7 years ago, we should certainly do the same now. There is no excuse not to. Congress should not be sitting back and kicking its feet up while there is work to be done.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on May 21, 2023, NASCAR's All-Star Race will return to North Wilkesboro Speedway for the first time in more than a quarter century. Since its inception in 1947, North Wilkesboro Speedway has hosted 93 NASCAR Cup races, and has attracted household names, from Richard Petty to Dale Earnhardt, Sr. Mr. Speaker, NASCAR's grassroots return to this historic track--its former stomping grounds--is a testament to the rich history of motorsports in western North Carolina. Generations of North Carolinians and motorsports enthusiasts from around the country will gather and watch history be made in North Carolina's Fifth District. Though this event is months away, the anticipation and energy within the community are very palpable. We look forward to this event.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, radical progressives will stop at nothing to advance their agenda of murdering the unborn. On July 15, on this very floor, the majority rushed through two horrendous pieces of legislation that directly target the unborn: the abortion on demand until birth act and the so-called Ensuring Access to Abortion Act. The right to life is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and the majority continues to conveniently ignore this fact. This shameful chapter of murdering the unborn should be consigned to the ash heap of history. Mr. Speaker, an outright denial of life for the most vulnerable, who cannot speak for themselves, is in no way justified. I will always serve as a voice for the unborn. They deserve nothing less than unwavering advocates.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration is canceling massive amounts of student debt. Many borrowers have seen thousands of dollars of debt canceled through Biden's actions, and that is just the start. The administration is getting ready to hand out more money courtesy of taxpayers. So, for the two-thirds of Americans who never earned a degree, where is your money? Where is the money for the construction worker in North Carolina or the stay-at-home mom in Tennessee? Why should these Americans pay for someone else's degree when they never went to college? You know who is getting the money, though? Doctors, lawyers, and graduate students. Many of these borrowers will receive $100,000 or more. It is unfair for taxpayers to pay the debts of lawyers and doctors who earn six figures. By appeasing the progressives, President Biden is throwing the middle class under the bus.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, when it comes to bailouts, Congress just can't seem to help itself. Under President Biden, taxpayers have been forced to bankroll the so-called American Rescue Plan which included an uncapped bailout for failing and insolvent multi-employer pensions. From footing the bill for this excessive government spending to record-high gas prices, taxpayers can't catch a break in Biden's America, and today we are considering another bailout that will force taxpayers to cover the tab for failed, privately run pensions. What message does this send to the men and women who have their own retirement accounts to worry about or have no retirement accounts at all? More pension bailouts set a damning precedent. In case anyone has forgotten, we work for hardworking taxpayers in this country. As Members of Congress we have an obligation to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. Unfortunately, too many ignore this important duty and are happy to mortgage the future of the next generation with reckless spending. On top of the price tag, there have been no hearings and no markups on H.R. 6929. Is this the standard the House wants to operate under--one where any piece of legislation can be fast-tracked to the floor without due consideration and scrutiny? Under Democrat control, good governance has long been abandoned in the people's House. In 2009, when Delphi Corporation completed its 4-year bankruptcy, its defined benefit pension plans were terminated and taken over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, a process that has been well-established. At that time, the Delphi pension plans were collectively underfunded by $7.2 billion. Delphi did not make required contributions to its pension plans in the 4 years it was moving through bankruptcy. The salaried employee plan, in particular, was only 48 percent funded with $2.4 billion in assets and liabilities of $5 billion. Fast forward to today, and we are considering a bill that would dole out money like candy. Under this bill, participants would receive a retroactive lump-sum payment, or ``top-up,'' of the difference between what was paid by PBGC and what the plans would have paid had they not been terminated. But here is the kicker, Madam Speaker: this top-up would come with an additional 6 percent interest, and all participants would receive their original monthly benefits moving forward. Let's turn our attention to the precedent that this bill sets for the entire single-employer pension system. Currently, PBGC's single- employer insurance program is funded exclusively by premiums paid by employer plan sponsors and does not--does not--receive taxpayer dollars. PBGC is the trustee of over 5,000 terminated single-employer plans. Madam Speaker, please pay attention to this next part. By topping up one plan, Congress will be pressured and expected to top up the remaining 5,000 terminated plans and every future terminated plan. How many plans does PBGC currently insure? More than 23,000 active, single-employer plans are currently insured. So, Madam Speaker, what is next on the docket? Should Congress roll up its sleeves and make whole every American's 401(k) plan that took a few hits? Again, how about Americans who do not have a pension plan? There are many of those. Imagine the harebrained schemes that Congress could start pulling out of its hat if given this encouragement. We should be protecting taxpayers, not feeding them to the wolves. This bill is a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility. H.R. 6929's cash giveaway will force taxpayers to shoulder a cost of $800 million over the next decade and $1.3 billion in all to bail out underfunded, privately run pension plans. Another bailout of failing pension plans does nothing but stick it to hardworking taxpayers. This bill simply underscores the fact that Congress is too misguided to focus on real issues. Madam Speaker, hardworking taxpayers cannot afford more senseless bailouts. Enough is enough. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Madam Speaker, again, I don't think we need another study. We don't need to delay action on this 2 years. What we need to do is increase premiums and impose stronger funding requirements. The plans are underfunded. It doesn't take an accountant or a rocket scientist to figure that out. Pogo said, ``We have met the enemy, and he is us.'' We, in Congress, are the problem. We need to do this. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleagues say we are here to help people. Our first job is like the doctor's oath: First, do no harm. This bill does harm. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, proponents of H.R. 6929 continue to cite the statistics that the salaried employee pension plan was 86 percent funded in 2009 and, therefore, should not have been terminated. This is misleading and simply not the case. When the salaried employee plan was terminated in 2009, it was roughly 50 percent funded with $2.4 billion in assets and $5 billion in liabilities. Delphi had not made required contributions to the plan in the previous 4 years. Further, Delphi was moving through bankruptcy proceedings, and the company stated publicly it was unable to fund its pension plans before reaching an agreement with PBGC to terminate the plans. Delphi had not made required contributions to the pension plans in the 4 years it was in bankruptcy proceedings. Delphi was liquidating assets in bankruptcy, and the plan had only enough assets to pay for half of its benefit obligations. Finally, if the Delphi salaried employee plan was truly as well funded as proponents suggest, then why did it not have enough assets to cover the benefits owed to workers and retirees? Madam Speaker, this is a big problem for the taxpayers of this country when we start bailing out pension plans in this way. We have a process through the PBGC, and that process should be followed. Madam Speaker, it is important, really important, to make sure the Record is accurate. Most Delphi salaried pension plan participants who are being discussed today either received no cuts in their pensions or saw cuts of less than 10 percent. PBGC typically becomes a trustee of a single-employer plan when the employer that sponsors the plan declares bankruptcy and the plan has insufficient assets from which to pay all promised benefits. When PBGC becomes a trustee of a single-employer pension plan, plan participants receive their full benefits up to a statutory maximum benefit, a benefit set by Congress. The maximum guarantee in 2009, the year of Delphi's bankruptcy, was $4,500 per month or $54,000 per year for retirees who began receiving benefits at age 65. That is a very high amount of money that many Americans will never earn per year, let alone have for retirement. PBGC reported in 2019 that 84 percent of retirees who receive benefits from PBGC are paid the full benefit amounts they earned under their retirement plans, meaning they do not have their benefits reduced. In the case of the Delphi salaried employee plan, 72 percent of participants were not affected by PBGC's statutory benefit limit. Of the remaining 28 percent, 36 percent saw less than a 10 percent reduction. Madam Speaker, again, I am speaking for the Americans who will never get a pension benefit because they have worked so hard but never made enough money to have a pension or don't have employers that pay pension benefits. We are bailing out people who are making a lot of money. Madam Speaker, wages aren't keeping up with inflation. A Washington Post economic columnist recently pointed out that workers are experiencing the biggest decline in years in inflation-adjusted pay. According to a new report, 75 percent of middle-income families say their ``income is falling behind the cost of living.'' Given persistent and rising inflation, H.R. 6929 is the last thing we should be considering. It will cost taxpayers nearly $800 million over 10 years and $1.3 billion in all to bail out Delphi's underfunded, privately run pension plan. Americans across the country do not want to fork over their hard- earned dollars to fund a costly project that was cooked up in Congress, especially when many have their own retirement accounts to consider or have none at all. By doubling down on an already failed strategy, taxpayers will be forced to cover the cost of this cash giveaway. This sets a terrible and troubling precedent that will embolden the Federal Government to bail out thousands of other privately run pensions. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this fiscally irresponsible catastrophe of a bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.