DETERRENT Act

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5933, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions, or DETERRENT Act, is before us today.

Historically, collaborations with global partners--and careful Federal investments in research--have enabled our colleges and universities to make bold, forward-thinking strides in health, science, and technology for people around the world.

Additionally, institutions have collaborated with the U.S. Government to enhance our research by attracting and retaining researchers and scholars from across the world.

These partnerships help drive intellectual and campus diversity, strengthen inner workings of our economy, and give us an undeniable competitive edge.

Institutions, however, must be transparent about the resources they receive from foreign entities, particularly as the Federal Government invests nearly $30 billion annually in our higher education research and development efforts.

Some colleges and universities, unfortunately, have not complied with all of their responsibilities in those disclosures. Regrettably, H.R. 5933 does nothing to meaningfully protect research security at colleges and universities.

For example, colleges must report any gift from a representative of a ``country of concern'' no matter the value--even a cup of coffee.

The faculty's information is then shared in a publicly searchable database, regardless of whether the action was nefarious or not.

This is excessive and burdensome--to say nothing about the potential discriminatory effect--and would disincentivize universities from conducting critical research using collaborative partners from around the world.

It would force them to deviate from established compliance and reporting guidelines under section 117 of the Higher Education Act.

Schools are already grappling with recruiting and retaining students and scholars. If passed, H.R. 5933 will stall decades of innovative progress and jeopardize global research initiatives.

Students and faculties are already calling on Congress to improve our higher education system and address discrimination on campus.

However, certain provisions of this bill would only exacerbate the ongoing culture wars that have consumed our colleagues in Congress.

For example, the legislation singles out partnerships with certain countries, targeting researchers based solely on their nationality.

As I have said before, we can achieve accountability and compliance without contributing to anti-Asian, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic animosity.

I have offered a thoughtful alternative to improve section 117 compliance and support institutions as they evaluate and implement their research integrity and foreign influence policies, and that alternative will be offered during the amendment process.

This amendment builds on the Chips and Science Act and the Presidential Memorandum on government-supported research and development national security policy guidelines.

Specifically, it aligns reporting requirements with those of Federal agencies and requires the Secretary of Education to go through negotiated rulemaking to address key implementation aspects of section 117.

We must take targeted and thoughtful steps to protect our research and development initiatives without jeopardizing our global partnerships that will benefit us all.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I will quote from a letter we received from the Asian American Scholar Forum in terms of the effect this bill would have on Asian-American researchers. It is a long letter, but I will read one paragraph.

``The DETERRENT Act would further chill participation in research by signaling to researchers and institutions that scientific collaboration is discouraged and effectively deter economic institutions and scholars from engaging with Chinese-American and immigrant colleagues and peers out of fear of punishment or heightened scrutiny. The DETERRENT Act's definition of a `foreign source' includes not just individuals overseas but those with lawful immigration status in the United States who are not U.S. citizens or nationals. As a practical matter, the DETERRENT Act would force scholars and researchers to scrutinize the immigration status of potential collaborators and would deter them from collaboration with individuals who may be perceived to be immigrants. Moreover, many scholars would not have access to private information, such as the immigration status of their peers, making this practically a difficult or impossible requirement for faculty, scholars, and researchers to meet. Additionally, the reporting requirement for contracts of no monetary value as it pertains to foreign entities and countries of concern as defined by the DETERRENT Act would significantly chill even normal, everyday communications, as it may be perceived as an agreement.''

This would obviously have a chilling effect, and that is one of the reasons we are opposing the DETERRENT Act.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Asian American Scholars Forum from which I quoted be entered into the Record.

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

Mr. Chair, despite my colleagues' claims, the DETERRENT Act would only burden colleges and universities and jeopardize global partnerships while doing nothing to help them comply with existing compliance and reporting guidelines.

House Democrats tried several times to ensure that the legislation included attainable, commonsense provisions for these institutions. For example, in committee, I offered an amendment to build on the Chips and Science Act and the ``Presidential Memorandum on United States Government-Supported Research and Development National Security Guidelines,'' aligning reporting requirements precisely to those Federal agencies that are already reporting with the Department of Education and requiring the Department of Education to go through negotiated rulemaking to conform those reporting requirements. Unfortunately, the Republican majority did not agree to it.

Mr. Chairman, Democrats are committed to helping institutions comply with the law, but we must always strike a balance between enforcing the law and fostering safe campuses for students, scholars, and faculty.

Regrettably, the legislation before us does nothing to achieve that goal. It would only drive deeper wedges into higher education systems at the expense of students, faculty, and our country's global innovative efforts.

Mr. Chair, as I indicated, in that letter from the Asian American Scholar Forum, they said: ``As a practical matter, the DETERRENT Act would force scholars and researchers to scrutinize the immigration status of potential collaborators and would deter them from collaboration with individuals who may be perceived to be immigrants,'' and the zero limit on monetary value for gifts ``would significantly chill even normal, everyday communications.''

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5933, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chair, this appears to be technical and clarifying. That is always a good thing, and I hope that we will adopt the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. I still have deep concerns about section 117 of the bill, because it places a target on the backs of researchers who work with foreign collaborators and would create a chilling effect for both international research and retention of international faculty and scholars, but this amendment would take the identifying information out and remove that target. I think that is a good direction.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, while I certainly want to ensure that institutions remain compliant with section 117, many compliance problems can be minimal or unintentional. Colleges and universities will obviously be held accountable for those problems and subsequent violations can be punished more severely, but a permanent ban seems very excessive as a mandatory penalty in all cases.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an unreasonable requirement. To have the information that is stored for 4 years, an additional year is not unreasonable. Therefore, I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this is an amendment that we should be able to accept. The problem is that it is hard to imagine how the college could actually comply with it.

Any association with a terrorist organization obviously should be avoided. You are not dealing with the terrorist organization; you are dealing with an organization who then has an affiliation or some support from the organization. There is no way for the college to know.

I would hope that we would not force the college into complying with something they would have no way to comply with.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, I will read the short amendment. It says: ``Any affiliation of the foreign source to an organization that is designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.''

It is hard to imagine how a college could always know exactly who has an affiliation with what.

Mr. Chair, for that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this lowers the threshold to $1. Any gift from any source, every gift or contract from any country--if you have some Canadian collaborators or somebody from Great Britain offering you coffee and donuts, you have to report it on a searchable database. I think that is an absurd amount of reporting that would have to be done.

This would create backlogs at the Department of Education and take time away from the scrutiny of the reports that really need to be looked at.

Mr. Chair, I hope we do not pass this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee mentioned billions of dollars from countries, and he mentioned some countries of concern. Countries of concern already have to report zero-dollar and up gifts. This just adds all other countries.

There is no need for the bill to go from the present law of $250,000 and up reports down to $50,000 for countries that are not countries of concern down to $1 to scrutinize billion-dollar gifts from countries of concern.

These reports are not free to comply with. The estimated costs of compliance are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars under the bill already.

Mr. Chairman, if you were to explode the number of reports that would have to be made if this amendment is adopted, there is no telling what the costs will be to the colleges and universities.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that we defeat the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add all international organizations as foreign sources that universities must report funding from under section 117. It would include the United Nations, UNESCO, the World Health Organization, and the World Trade Organization. These multinational organizations, many of which have significant participation by the United States, should not be deemed as necessarily national security threats.

This amendment would expand the burdensome section 117 compliance without giving any clear reason of how it would protect national security.

For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the American Council on Education signed by 18 national higher education organizations.

Mr. Chairman, part of the letter reads: ``While we understand the concern regarding foreign funding to U.S. institutions in higher education is bipartisan, we believe the DETERRENT Act is duplicative of existing interagency efforts, unnecessary, and puts in place a problematic expansion of the data collection by the U.S. Department of Education that will broadly curtail important needed international research collaboration and academic and cultural exchanges.''

Mr. Chairman, I think that applies to this amendment, too.

Mr. Chairman, I hope Members vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5933.

My Democratic colleagues and I remain committed to ensuring institutions have sufficient resources to safeguard their work from undue foreign influence. Nevertheless, while I appreciate the majority's interest in addressing this important issue, I fear that their proposal is far too extreme and does not actually promote institutional compliance.

Specifically, with such harsh fines and limited opportunities for institutions to seek guidance, I am concerned that these changes to section 117 of the Higher Education Act will discourage institutions from collaborating with international entities that are essential in solving important global issues.

It is also very concerning to see language that targets individual faculty members for their collaboration with foreign entities. We have seen, in cases such as the wrongfully accused MIT faculty member, that this sort of targeting can easily lead to harmful consequences rooted in xenophobia for innocent scholars. We must always strive to strike a balance between enforcing the law and fostering safe campuses for students, scholars, and faculty.

Through its overlapping and overly burdensome requirements, harsh penalties, and duplicities to current foreign influence requirements across Federal agencies, the DETERRENT Act takes a sledgehammer to a problem that needs to be addressed with a scalpel.

The Democratic substitute makes a thoughtful approach to section 117 compliance to support institutions as they evaluate and implement their research integrity and foreign influence policies.

In addition to requiring the filing of annual reports for gifts and contracts from foreign entities, our bill would create a robust database at the Department of Education to hold these reports. It establishes commonsense sanctions for noncompliance that allow for room to help institutions that need support scaling up their compliance work. Moreover, it establishes a single point of contact at the Department to coordinate section 117 compliance.

It also builds on the work being done through the implementation of the Chips and Science Act and the ``Presidential Memorandum on United States Government-Supported Research and Development National Security Guidelines'' by aligning important requirements to those of other Federal agencies and requiring the Secretary of Education to go through negotiated rulemaking to address key implementation aspects of section 117.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute, rather than the underlying bill, to enhance institutions' real ability to protect against foreign influence.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chair, in the committee chair's remarks, she mentioned that there is a difference between countries of concern and other countries. I remind her that we just passed an amendment that essentially eliminated that difference. A recorded vote was requested, and perhaps she could join me in trying to defeat that amendment to the bill.

This amendment in the nature of a substitute significantly increases the gifts and contracts that need to be reported compared to present law. It takes a more moderate approach to national security than the underlying bill, which I think is an extreme approach.

It will be very difficult for colleges to comply with. For that reason, I hope that we adopt the Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute and, if not, defeat the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 906 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 906, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act, or the CARS Act of 2023, to be considered under a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for two measures related to education: H.R. 5933, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act, or the DETERRENT Act, and H.J. Res. 88 related to income-driven repayments for educational loans.

H.R. 5933 would be considered under a structured rule with eight amendments made in order. It provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the second education measure to be considered under a closed rule is H.J. Res. 88, a joint resolution nullifying the final rule submitted by the Department of Education on income-driven repayment published on July 10, 2023. It also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 4468, the CARS Act.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like every week we are here talking about another bureaucracy under the Biden administration overstepping their bounds. Again and again, these out-of-control agencies under this administration are chipping away at our personal freedom.

This time, it is the EPA. Specifically, their proposed new standard is for two-thirds of all new vehicles to be electric by 2032.

Last night, at the Rules Committee hearing, the bill's sponsor, Representative Walberg, laid out why this legislation is very clearly necessary. This misguided EPA rule takes away consumer choice. Americans should be able to have every option available to them in what vehicle they choose to drive, specifically because automobiles vary greatly in both reliability and cost, and consumers have different wants and needs.

Market demand, not government mandates, should drive this industry. If nothing else, our colleagues should support this legislation because it is also not ready for prime time.

Electric vehicles are more expensive. Until the cost comes down, we shouldn't be forcing these purchases on consumers.

While Americans are experiencing crushing inflation, the infrastructure needed to support EVs does not exist. This rule disadvantages rural communities like mine and so many others across the country.

Mr. Speaker, we all know it is a Biden administration priority to pour billions into green energy and clean cars. The President even recently invoked the Defense Production Act, spending $169 million in green energy handouts for electric heat pumps for water heaters. That doesn't seem like a top priority to meet the needs of our national defense.

This EPA rule simply ignores the practicality, cost, and choice for Americans, and it is wrong.

One doesn't need to look further than Secretary Granholm's recent failed and taxpayer-funded EV road trip. This PR stunt was ridiculed for highlighting the shortcomings of EVs rather than their potential and also resulted in a probe by the House Oversight and Energy and Commerce Committees.

Most egregiously during this trip, the police were called when Secretary Granholm's staff blocked a charging station from use by a Georgia family with an infant in the middle of summer.

It is unbelievable, really, but under President Biden's EPA, this would be reality for everyone everywhere in America.

In addition, with the forced and accelerated transition to EVs, this EPA standard prioritizes benefits to China over the needs of the American people. As we all know, China controls many of the raw materials necessary for batteries and other components for EVs. By rushing to meet arbitrary green and climate agendas, the United States is more likely to solidify China's control of the energy future rather than save the planet.

Mr. Speaker, we must be measured, trust market forces and American consumers, and not push top-down and expensive mandates. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 4468.

Moving on to education, as a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I am glad to see floor consideration of H.R. 5933, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act, also known as the DETERRENT Act.

This legislation would bring much-needed transparency, accountability, and clarity to foreign gift reporting requirements for

colleges and universities across the Nation.

I know many of our colleagues share our concerns over foreign adversaries infiltrating college campuses. Foreign adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party have been leveraging ties with institutions of higher education in order to further soft power goals for many years, including by shaping public narratives, influencing academic curricula, sowing social divisions, and undermining faith in our public institutions and our very system of government. It must stop.

While it is clear that global partnerships and academic collaboration can be beneficial for U.S. students at our universities, it is our responsibility to carefully monitor foreign partnerships, particularly with countries of concern, and we must be steadfast in doing so. We must ensure our adversaries are not given a platform in our classrooms to work against the United States' values and interests.

The Biden administration doesn't seem to take this responsibility seriously, though. They have not opened a single new investigation since taking office.

Just this week, the Department of Education updated their section 117 FAQs. This was their first update to these FAQs since taking office 3 years ago, and it was undoubtedly a result of pressure from our work on the Education and the Workforce Committee in passing the DETERRENT Act.

Because of the Biden administration's failure on section 117, the University of Pennsylvania alone took $14 million from unnamed contributors in China and Hong Kong and $2.4 million from unnamed contributors in Saudi Arabia since 2021. These amounts are well over the threshold of concern and are reasons alone to pass the DETERRENT Act.

Back home in Indiana, our own Valparaiso University was home to a Confucius Institute. These institutes are funded and arranged by the People's Republic of China and have raised concerns about improper influence over teaching, espionage, and undermining Taiwan and its relationship with the United States. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita investigated this Confucius Institute, and though it has now been closed, the need for oversight remains.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original supporter of this legislation, and I urge its passage.

Finally, H.J. Res. 88 is a joint resolution nullifying President Biden's reckless income-driven repayment plans that would effectively forgive nearly

half of the student loan debt and cost taxpayers at least $138 billion over the next 10 years.

It would be a direct cost to taxpayers because this proposed student loan debt plan simply transfers the burden of paying these loans away from student loan borrowers and onto those taxpayers who have chosen not to go to college.

A 2019 Government Accountability Office report found that 95,100 income-driven repayment plans were held by borrowers who reported zero income yet earned enough wages to make monthly student loan payments. Borrowers with these 95,100 income-driven repayment plans owed nearly $4 billion in outstanding direct loans.

As to their family size, about 40,900 income-driven repayment plans were approved based on large family sizes of nine or more, which are atypical for income-driven repayment plans. GAO also found two income- driven repayment plans that were approved in which the borrower reported a family size of 93. Borrowers with atypical family sizes of nine or more owed almost $2.1 billion in outstanding direct loans.

Given all of this reported fraud, I have significant concerns with the Biden administration's income-driven repayment plans.

Since I went to college, tuition and fees have increased almost three times more than the rate of inflation, many due to subsidized tuition in the form of grants and loans that are already largely paid by taxpayers. Student debt in the U.S. is now over $1.6 trillion, with the average borrower owing over $37,000.

Since 1980, the average cost of college attendance has risen 180 percent. We can't keep writing blank checks to universities, particularly when many are failing our students and graduation rates are poor.

We need solutions that will drive down the cost of college. The income-driven repayment plan doesn't address the root cause of this issue, and it places an unfair burden on the taxpayer.

I look forward to the consideration of this legislation that will actually address the underlying issue here, and I urge the passage of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that Congress has provided $7.5 billion for electric vehicle chargers, and they have built zero so far.

According to this article recently published by Politico, the United States has around 180,000 chargers today according to the Energy Department, including 41,000 of the type of chargers that can alleviate what they are calling range anxiety. They expect that the U.S. will need 1.2 million public chargers by 2030 to meet the demand, including 182,000 fast chargers.

Again, I would say this rule is not ready for prime time. We don't even have the vehicle charging stations available, and we don't expect that if zero have been built, we will meet that demand.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include this article in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that the criticism that this bill does nothing to address the spiraling cost of education is just not true. The cost of higher education always rises in connection with the availability of student loans.

Making student loans widely available with government backing has caused this wild cost increase in higher education, which has increased 4.6 times the rate of inflation since 1971.

Canceling student loan debt will not lead to reductions in the cost of higher education. It will, instead, likely have the opposite effect, encouraging colleges and universities to raise tuition and other fees, knowing full well that the cost of these items will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have before us the opportunity to move legislation that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of Americans. This is not nothing.

Whether it is the overreach of the bureaucratic state or protecting our colleges and universities from bad actors, the choice before us in this rule is clear: We must take action.

H.R. 4468, the CARS Act, protects American consumers, protects their freedom of choice, and does not give China the upper hand in the energy economy of the future.

We must let market forces work and American ingenuity lead the way, not pursue mandates and unrealistic green agendas that drive us off a fiscal cliff and pick winners and losers.

H.R. 5933, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act, or the DETERRENT Act, takes seriously our responsibility to carefully evaluate foreign partnerships, particularly with countries of concern.

We must ensure our adversaries are not given a platform within our classrooms to work against the United States, our values, and our interests.

H.J. Res. 88, the joint resolution nullifying President Biden's reckless income-driven repayment plans, will increase rather than decrease the cost of college. This Biden rule will effectively forgive nearly half of the student loan debt and cost taxpayers at least $138 billion over the next 10 years. Therefore, it is the responsibility of Congress to reject this rule as we continue our work to address the cost of higher education in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this rule would bring three measures to the House floor. First, H.R. 5933, the DETERRENT Act. Democrats and Republicans agree there ought to be transparency if higher education institutions get money from foreign countries.

Thankfully, President Biden has worked to improve compliance with existing laws. Because of that, over $1.5 billion more per year have been reported publicly under this President than the prior one.

Instead of working together and building on this progress, Republicans are trying to advance this bill that adds onerous new reporting requirements, making it harder for our academic institutions and researchers to remain number one in the world.

The second bill here, H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2023, blocks the Environmental Protection Agency's final authority to finalize a car emissions rule protecting Americans from motor vehicle pollution.

The message House Republicans are sending here is pretty simple. Yet again, they are putting polluters over people and picking winners and losers in our transportation sector.

Over 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy air pollution, with children, the elderly, low-income communities, and communities of color being disproportionately at risk. Air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States every single year.

The health impacts of rolling back these standards are bad enough. Frankly, it is outrageous that this majority continues to actively fight against innovation and against lower energy costs and against the private sector making decisions based on what people actually want.

The reality is that EVs are already popular. American demand for EVs is largely outpacing supply as demand has increased by over 350 percent in the last few years alone. They are also cheaper to own, decreasing fuel costs by 50 percent or more, and ongoing technological advancements are translating to better options for consumers every year.

I must point out that Republicans oppose our investments in American EV manufacturing. They are actually advocating for American industry to stand down. Rather than conceding ground to global adversaries like China, Democrats want to invest in America's ability to compete and beat our economic competitors.

For all these reasons and more, H.R. 4468 is a bad bill that denies Americans immense public health and environmental benefits of the EPA proposed standards.

Finally, we have H.J. Res. 88, a bill that would block the Biden administration from implementing a new income-driven repayment plan to help save borrowers money.

I want people to listen carefully to me. President Biden tried to create a new plan to reduce people's student loan monthly payments, and Republicans want to stop him from doing it for no other reason than they don't care. They literally do not care about this issue.

It seems that Republicans are willing to stop at nothing to prevent hardworking Americans from getting student loan relief. This is just another attempt to attack the Biden administration for addressing the serious financial concerns of low- and middle-income student loan borrowers.

The best thing about this bill, the only good thing I can say here, Mr. Speaker, is that it failed to pass the Senate. In other words, this bill is going nowhere.

Another wasted week for America, Mr. Speaker, courtesy of this Republican majority. Today, three more bills that do nothing--nothing-- to make life better for anyone.

Republicans want to increase the cost of student loans for workers and families and make it easier for Big Oil CEOs to pollute our communities. That is their agenda.

They have been a total and complete failure, the least productive Congress in history, with the most rules failed in a single year. They have dragged our country to the brink of default, almost shut down the government twice, and wasted weeks and weeks fighting about which one of them should be Speaker.

Bill after bill, amendment after amendment to ban abortion and attack LGBTQ people, and now they want to impeach the President when even their own Members say there is no ``there'' there. They are doing a lousy job, and it shows. The only good news is that they are not going to be in the majority after this next election.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide consideration of a resolution which clearly states that this House will keep our promise to American seniors and workers to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare against any cuts to these crucial programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of my amendment, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on the vote to defeat the previous question because my Republican friends have made it clear time and time again that they are going after Social Security. The benefit cuts are on the table. They have repeatedly made that clear.

It is important that this House speak with one voice, or at least the majority speak, that we reject Republican attempts to renege on our promise to our senior citizens and that we make it clear that we will not stand for any cuts to this important program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman who just yelled at us that his party is in charge.

He is talking about jamming things down the throats of Democrats and the Senate and the White House, as if somehow that is a way to get anything done for the American people.

He talks about standing up.

What did they do when we were on the verge of shutting the government down? They didn't stand up. Democrats had to stand up and save the day.

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with one thing the gentleman said when he came to the floor. He shouted: One thing--I want my Republican colleagues to tell me one thing. Tell me one thing that I can go back and campaign on and say that we did; one material, meaningful, significant thing that the Republican majority has done.

The bottom line is, he is right. The Republican majority of this House has done nothing to help the American people.

It is a disgrace. It is political malpractice.

The bills that we are debating here today, they are making it sound like, oh, if we pass these bills, once the ink dries, this is the law. These bills are going nowhere. These bills are going nowhere.

I mean, what they do is tell you about values. I mean, the gentlewoman from Indiana mentioned in her opening remarks that student loan forgiveness is not fair because not everybody goes to college.

Think about that--not fair?

By her logic, public high schools aren't fair, public middle schools aren't fair, public elementary schools aren't fair.

My kids aren't in middle or high school anymore, but I am proud that my tax dollars pay for other people's kids to get an education. That is how it should work. It helps make us more competitive. It strengthens our country when our students are the best educated in the world. It is the right thing to do.

The bottom line is that Republicans seem to think that education is just not a good idea, that somehow we don't benefit from a well- educated workforce.

They are wrong. They are wrong.

Democrats have a different view. We believe education is important, and we ought to support it. We believe more Americans having a good education helps everyone. We believe more Americans with college degrees uplifts our whole economy, not just those who go to college.

So if my colleagues oppose student loan forgiveness because it isn't fair--that is what they say--I guess they just want to get rid of our whole public education system. I know some of them do. I hear them bash public education every chance they get, but I think most people think that is nuts.

So, again, we have an opportunity to do something, to do something meaningful to help people, and these are the bills we bring to the floor. I guess they are filler. I don't know, maybe they make good posts on social media for the Republican base, but this is a complete waste of time.

So the gentleman from Texas was right when he said, name one thing, one thing that Republicans have done. The bottom line is he couldn't, and nobody came to help him out because my friends on the other side have done nothing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, these bills are so impactful that the demand to speak is so underwhelming that I am the only one left.

Mr. Speaker, with just one week left before we finish our official business for this year, these are the three measures that House Republican leadership has decided that we should focus on:

A bill to overcorrect a problem in a way that would hinder U.S. global research; a bill to limit consumer choice, promote pollution, and hurt America's economic leadership; and a bill that attacks the Biden administration for addressing the serious financial concerns of low- and middle-income student loan borrowers.

That is it. That is it.

Now they want to go home for the holidays instead of addressing--I don't know--anything that matters.

I will repeat again, they have done nothing, nothing, nothing in this Congress that helps people. It almost feels like Groundhog Day every time we come to the floor.

We have considered multiple bills to roll back environmental rules and protections, multiple bills that promote the far right's bizarre culture wars, multiple bills that would help Republicans' greedy corporate friends and billionaire donors, instead of everyday people. A rule is taken down one day, and we are trying to elect a new Speaker the next. We have votes on measures to destroy, deflect, and distract but not to fix any of the very real problems that our constituents face.

We are on an extreme MAGA merry-go-round. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, I want to get off this ride, and so do the people I represent. They are sick and tired of this. As we have all year, House Democrats continue to extend the hand of partnership. We will try to find common ground so we can lower costs and grow the middle class.

The American people deserve a Congress that can put people over politics and meet their urgent needs. They are not getting that with this Republican majority. As I said before, you guys are doing a lousy job, and it shows. The only good news is that I believe after the next election you will no longer be in the majority.

I hear from Democrats, I hear from Independents, I hear from Republicans all the time about their disappointment with the failure of this Congress to address any of the real concerns that they have.

Everything is a sound bite. Everything is a gotcha vote. Everything is an appeal to the most extreme rightwing of the rightwing.

Enough. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my friends will reconsider their priorities and actually start focusing in on things that the American people care about.

I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule, a ``no'' vote on the underlying bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the DETERRENT Act, H.R. 5933. The Republican transparency and accountability agenda is on the march, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce has set its sights on postsecondary education.

We delivered the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, a bill to ensure Title IX funding doesn't go to athletic programs which disadvantage young women.

Just yesterday, we conducted oversight of anti-Semitism on campus during a contentious hearing with Ivy League presidents.

Now, we are considering the DETERRENT Act, a bill that restores transparency and accountability in foreign donations to American universities.

The DETERRENT Act strengthens section 117 of the Higher Education Act, which was intended to protect American universities from nefarious foreign donations.

Unfortunately, many schools failed to report these foreign gifts and funding, leaving foreign actors with a stranglehold on U.S. academic institutions.

A 2019 Senate report found that up to 70 percent of universities fail to comply with the law, and outside experts uncovered nearly $13 billion in previously undisclosed foreign funds.

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Without transparency, we have no idea the true amount of foreign funds at our universities.

This legislation safeguards our national security in five key ways. First, this bill lowers the minimum foreign gift reporting threshold to $50,000 from its current $250,000. For countries of concern, every penny must be reported.

Second, the bill closes loopholes that allow foreign entities to hide the true origin or purpose of their gifts.

Every disclosure must include the intended purposes, dates, and person at the institution responsible for accepting the gift.

Third, the DETERRENT Act requires that research faculty at our largest research universities disclose foreign gifts and contracts publicly so the American people can see if academic work is compromised.

Fourth, it reveals foreign investments by the endowments of our largest private universities.

Finally, it sets real, meaningful penalties for universities that fail to comply. Foreign influence is not something our schools should take lightly.

I am proud of my Republican colleague, Representative Michelle Steel, for introducing this fantastic piece of legislation, and the Committee on Education and the Workforce is proud to deliver yet another win for transparency, for accountability, and for the American people.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.

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

As we all know, public confidence in American universities is in a free fall. According to Gallup, it has dropped almost 3 percentage points a year, on average, over the last 8 years.

The crisis of confidence is multifaceted: part tuition cost, sinking return on investment, and soaring debt. To each of the issues plaguing modern universities, the answer is restoring the principles of transparency and accountability.

Yes, passing this legislation would send a strong message to our foreign

adversaries, but more importantly, it will send a strong message to our constituents: We are good stewards of your votes.

While I know we cannot restore public trust in the university system overnight, requiring a basic level of transparency in foreign donations and accountability from universities is a great first step.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the DETERRENT Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, my amendment makes technical edits to the underlying bill while also clarifying certain language on gifts, enforcement, and the timeline for the subsequent Government Accountability Office study.

The DETERRENT Act includes commonsense disclosure exemptions for industrial and intellectual property rights, except when they involve national security. My amendment clarifies the definition for intellectual property of national security concern by citing the existing Commerce Control List, which includes categories such as chemicals, avionics, and aerospace. If a transaction with foreign nations involves these sensitive industries, it should be disclosed.

Chronic noncompliance of section 117 is the central motivation for this bill, so my amendment also includes language to ensure the Secretary follows the law and brings civil action against noncompliant entities. This means even a recalcitrant administration, like the Biden administration, would have to treat noncompliance with the seriousness it deserves.

Lastly, my amendment adds language requested by the GAO to help it effectively measure the implementation and interagency coordination of provisions in the DETERRENT Act. Communication is key to combating malign foreign influence, and the GAO study will identify ways to improve that communication and coordination.

Mr. Chair, with this amendment's simplistic nature, I hope for its easy passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and supporting this very technical amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute from Mr. Scott.

Instead of taking the threat of foreign influence seriously, this amendment is a mere slap on the wrist for campuses and includes gaping disclosure loopholes. This is insufficient to protect our students and institutions from our worst adversaries.

The amendment first makes it easier for foreign sources to be undetected, doubling the threshold for contracts to $100,000 and allowing gifts under $250,000 over a 3-year span to go unreported.

Bad actors will seek any possible way to avoid transparency about their attempts to harm America through their influence over American postsecondary education, and a strict threshold is essential to stop that from happening.

The annual thresholds in the DETERRENT Act are simple and align with other requirements in existing Federal law.

Shockingly, this amendment includes no differences for America's biggest enemies: countries of concern and entities of concern. In my colleagues' minds, gifts from Russia and Iran are the same as gifts from England.

I find it alarming that my colleagues are trying to make it easier for countries of concern to find ways to influence our universities.

The DETERRENT Act uses a tailored list of countries and individuals, pulled from existing law, that have a proven track record of being security threats and actively working against the United States.

The Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute also has terrible carve-outs that provide gaping loopholes for cunning adversaries. The amendment prevents disclosure of the names of foreign sources and who at the institution is responsible for receiving the gift.

These loopholes will make it easier for foreign sources to conceal their relationships and schools to feign ignorance, rendering disclosures all but useless.

Finally, the Democrats provide no real incentive for schools to comply. Their fines for violations go as low as $250. After three consecutive years of violations, the Democrats' fine only goes up to the full amount of the gift.

This is a laughable drop in the bucket compared to the billions in foreign contributions. Money talks, and institutions need to know section 117 cannot be ignored. We have already seen institutions fail to disclose billions in the past, and this paltry fine has no real consequences.

Mr. Chair, it is time to take foreign influence seriously. I stand against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my friend from Virginia and I have been doing really very well in working in a bipartisan manner recently, and I hate for things to come between us, but his amendment in the nature of a substitute really does do a lot of damage to the underlying bill.

There is no enforcement mechanism. There is no difference for malign actors. We have evidence to show that these foreign gifts are having an impact on the number of anti-Semitic demonstrations on the campuses. We know that foreigners are doing a lot to undermine our beliefs and values in this country.

We need to be aware of where money is coming from, from other countries and particularly from those countries that we know want to destroy us.

Mr. Chair, I have to very strongly oppose the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5933.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the DETERRENT Act, a bill that will work toward preventing foreign influence within America's institutions, colleges, and universities by strengthening section 117 of the Higher Education Act.

Section 117 requires colleges and universities to report contracts with and gifts from a foreign source that, alone or combined, are valued at $250,000 or more for per calendar year.

My amendment will prohibit repeat-offending institutions from obtaining waivers that will allow them to accept donations or gifts from countries or entities of concern.

Some countries and entities, like China, pose a particular concern to the United States, and as such, institutions are required under this act to obtain special waivers if they wish to accept donations, gifts, or contracts from them.

My amendment simply adds that if an institution fails to comply with this act for 3 years, they are no longer eligible to receive these waivers. It is kind of a ``three strikes and you are out'' deal.

Foreign funds can come with strings attached, as we all know, strings that undermine our own national security. Foreign countries can use investment in America's colleges and institutions to disseminate propaganda, steal secrets and research, and, unfortunately, so much more.

This is why countries that raise more concern have more supervision over any of their donations or gifts, including waiver requirements.

This is really a commonsense amendment. We are not stripping away waivers after the first mistake. We are not even stripping away waivers after the second mistake. If it is the third time, if you neglect this act, this is obviously purposeful and that is when we say, as I mentioned before, three strikes and you are out. You have proven, if you do that, that you lack the transparency and the trust that are required to have these waivers permitted.

This amendment is not only about transparency and accountability, but it is also fundamentally about our national security.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of our national security by supporting this amendment. I hope this is bipartisan.

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

Mr. Chair, I think I made my point clear. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer yet another amendment on the DETERRENT Act. It again deals with section 117, which requires colleges and universities to report contracts or gifts that total over $250,000 in a given year. It is, I think, very important because of the nefarious influence that some foreign governments might exert on our youngest and most talented minds.

When Secretary DeVos, in 2019, initiated investigations into just 12 universities to ensure compliance with section 117, the Department found that $6.5 billion of previously unreported foreign gifts and contracts were revealed. Despite this demonstrating a clear need for increased investigation and enforcement, the Biden administration's Department of Education refuses to open investigations under section 117 to ensure institutions aren't hiding foreign investments.

Think about that for a second: 12 institutions. $6.5 billion of gifts revealed, when they were essentially audited. That is scary. It is unbelievably frightening.

The underlying bill does not require institutions to maintain certain information about foreign gifts and contracts, including unredacted versions, which would allow for future investigations, if needed.

However, my amendment would change the minimum length of time that they must maintain this information from 4 years to 5 years. It is a step in the right direction. It is really rather minor, 4 to 5 years. The yearlong extension, why this is relevant, is because if we had a potential change in the administrations--regardless that administrations last 4 years at a time--this would be protected with 5 years.

If we have a Department of Education that is uninterested or unwilling to investigate potential foreign influences in our institutions, this added extension of that 1 year could become very impactful.

This should be, I think, in my humble opinion, a completely bipartisan and noncontroversial amendment. It can go both ways. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have concerns about a future Republican administration, this just adds that extra year of protection.

This will also work toward restoring legislative branch relevance, as we see the executive branch continually year over year, regardless of what party is in power at the White House, eat away at our constitutional oversight, and, frankly, authority in powers.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and in favor of the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, one of the other reasons why we should hopefully get overwhelming support for this amendment is this--let me give you a quick example.

In the final year of President Trump's administration, universities reported $1.6 billion in foreign donations. In the entire first year of the Biden Presidency, that number magically plunged to $4.3 million.

I doubt that the actual donations and gifts and such were reduced by 37,200 percent. I think it is merely a case of if section 117 isn't going to be essentially audited, then these universities and other institutions don't feel compelled to follow Federal law. That is another reason why I think extending this from 4 to 5 years is critical.

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