H.Res. 906

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. 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, pursuant to House Resolution 906, I call up the bill (H.R. 4468) to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed rule with respect to emissions from vehicles, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material in the Record on

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act, and I urge all Members to support its passage.

America's economy is at its best when innovation, free enterprise, and consumer choice rule the day. This formula once made America a world leader in the automotive sector. Unfortunately, some key decisionmakers have forgotten that. Elected officials, government regulators, and auto manufacturers eager to appease their liberal overlords, especially those in the Biden administration, need a reminder of that fact.

It is troubling that this administration, in a faltering economy, would try to replace reliable, available, functional, and affordable transportation for hardworking Americans with something far less reliable, far less available, far less functional, and far less affordable.

Under EPA's recent tailpipe proposal, two-thirds of all new cars being sold in America must be electric-powered vehicles by 2032. That is only 8 years from now.

The American people did not ask for this.

While the average price of an EV reportedly fell 22.4 percent in the last year in response to lack of demand and government subsidies, they are still far more expensive than a liquid fuel vehicle.

There are also hidden costs: $500 extra annually for insurance; at least $4,000 for battery replacement, and that is the bottom; $1,200 to $2,500 for home charging equipment. That is after you pay to rewire your home.

Range anxiety is still a real concern. EVs need more frequent and much longer stops for charges. The average EV gets about 234 miles per charge compared to 403 miles with a gas fill-up. Plus, cold weather, battery size, and towing weight can shrink battery range significantly.

Any way you look at it, working-class Americans who need reliable and affordable transportation would take a hit from a mandate eliminating their options.

This bill protects our constituents, allowing them to buy the automobile that makes the most sense for them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 4468, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this bill does not prevent the EPA from finalizing a rule. It only tells the EPA that it cannot mandate a specific technology and prevents the EPA from issuing rules that limit a vehicle's availability based on engine type.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the full committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde), the co-lead for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my colleague that just spoke, but I have to say that this idea that electric vehicles are emission-free is totally unfounded.

In fact, it is totally false. All you have to do is look at where the raw materials come from. Look at how China produces those materials. There are lots of emissions. If the argument is legitimate that we are going to saves lives here, we are going to cost lives over there because they are not concerned about the climate. They are not concerned with the environment, they are not concerned about the people that they use--slave labor in many cases--to try to harvest the materials that make these electric vehicles in the first place.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Madam Speaker, we actually agree on some things with our Democrat colleagues. We agree that we ought to keep the environment clean: the air, water, and land. But throwing money at it, like my Democrat colleagues are trying to do, is not the answer to the problem.

This rule would result in lost middle-class jobs in the United States because we can't get new facilities and infrastructure even permitted to do these things under the current administration. Until that happens, America will be heavily reliant on China.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Speaker, again, I agree, vote America. I urge my Democrat colleagues to remember that fossil fuels have raised more people around this planet across the globe out of poverty than any other fuel source on the planet, and America knows how to do that best.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my friend and colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mr. Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), my friend, colleague, and neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my friend and outstanding member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), an auto dealer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), my friend and colleague, to close.

Mr. Speaker, that was my closing, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Washington, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the CARS Act is to permit Americans, not the executive branch of the Federal Government, to continue deciding what type of car makes the most sense for them.

The purpose is not to reopen decades-old requirements that Americans have become accustomed to with their cars, and which manufacturers consider to be standard--whether it is the catalytic converter or the onboard diagnostic system, especially because those regulations were not trying to do away with an engine type--but, rather, to just address the most harmful pollution coming from that car.

Rather than creating any confusion for EPA, automakers, or the public, or leading to unintended consequences or unnecessary litigation, this amendment sets a limit on how far back in time the provisions of H.R. 4468 apply.

Instead of applying to any regulation ever issued in the history of the authority provided under Clean Air Act section 202(a), the manager's amendment caps the retroactivity of the bill's provisions to section 202(a) regulations, including revisions, proposed or prescribed on or after January 1, 2021.

By adding this date, the legislation focuses on pushing back on regulations that would have the Federal Government, and not Americans, decide what kinds of cars they should be able to drive.

For over 100 years, Americans have been free to buy their own mode of transportation based upon what is available, reliable, affordable, and functional for their lives. Quite frankly, it was because of these criteria that electric vehicles never took off with American consumers, but the Model T did.

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that adopting this amendment would have an insignificant net effect on the deficit.

I urge all Members to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's look at what we have heard today. If we want to help America's autoworkers, then let's keep them on the job. It takes a lot less labor to make electric vehicles than it does to make combustion engine vehicles.

If we want to protect the environment, then let's keep China from doing all the mining and refining of the rare earth minerals and critical materials, and supply chain that we actually need to make electric vehicles here in America.

If we want to stop supporting China, rather than buy Chinese cars, which is where this is ultimately going to go if we continue down this road, let's permit mining and refining of critical materials right here in America so when we do make electric vehicles, and we give the American people a choice about purchasing those vehicles, they are made with American materials mined and refined in America by American workers rather than putting money in the pockets of the Chinese Communist Party.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think about what the future looks like. We need to rein in the EPA's egregious rule mandating electric vehicles.

Let me remind you, Republicans are not opposed to electric vehicles. I have a lot of friends who own electric vehicles. Not very many of them live in Appalachia, rural communities, where they are impractical and unaffordable, but if we want to empower the American people with choice, then we need to roll back this EV mandate because the day will come when the only choice that people will have is to buy a car that is manufactured in China by China. That will be the only thing that is going to be available because we can't get permits here in America to do our mining and refining of those critical materials.

China has already sent signals that they are going to start and have already started withholding those critical materials that we need to make electric vehicles.

The Chinese are setting a trap. God forbid if we let the Biden administration force us to fall into that trap.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4468. Instead of working with us on legislation to lower costs for consumers, protect public health, drive innovation, and grow the economy, the Republican majority is once again bringing an anti-clean vehicle bill to the floor as part of their polluters over people agenda.

H.R. 4468 would block the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing its proposed light- and medium-duty vehicle rule. It would also block the Agency from finalizing any future standard to cut greenhouse gas pollution from vehicles. This bill would simply prevent the EPA from doing its job.

House Republicans are trying to legislate away years of innovation in cleaner transportation to put polluters over people.

The Clean Air Act is clear, Mr. Speaker. EPA has the authority and obligation to protect American communities from air pollution that would cause harm to public health and welfare. That includes pollution from the transportation sector, the single-largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and other dangerous air pollution in the United States.

This pollution affects more than 100 million Americans who live in counties with unhealthy air, and air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths each year.

The EPA's proposed emissions standards for manufacturers of cars and light-duty trucks is intended to tackle this pollution head-on. The result: The new rule is projected to deliver $1 trillion in net public health benefits.

Cleaner cars are also a win for consumers who can expect to save an average of $12,000 in fuel and maintenance costs over the lifetime of a light-duty vehicle once EPA standards are in effect.

I will stress that EPA's proposal is achievable. It will save consumers money and bolster jobs and our economy by promoting American manufacturing. It will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

With this bill, House Republicans are denying the American people all of these benefits.

The bill is also a direct assault on our domestic auto industry. Decades of innovation spurred by ambitious EPA standards have led to a growing fleet of cleaner, more affordable cars for all Americans.

I have to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the bill's reference to choice is a misnomer. EPA's proposed standards are key to expanding vehicle choice for American drivers. More than 100 electric vehicle models are now available in U.S. markets alongside many hybrid and gas-powered options, giving Americans unprecedented flexibility in where and how they choose to fuel. This incredible innovation is the main reason why the United States is a global leader in the transportation sector.

H.R. 4468 would stifle this innovation and cause detrimental uncertainty for American automakers. The bill includes vague language that will prevent the EPA from ever finalizing vehicle standards for any type of motor vehicle. The bill would lock auto manufacturers in today's technology in perpetuity, chilling potential advancements in new hybrids, flex fuel, fuel cell, and even internal combustion engines.

None of this makes any sense, Mr. Speaker. This extreme bill would hurt our ability to harness new technologies, which would only weaken our ability to compete with China.

With this legislation, Republicans are telling the American industry to stand down to China in a global challenge. That is just wrong. Rather than ceding that role to China, House Democrats delivered real solutions with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. These laws are investing in America's ability to beat our economic competitors, including China, ensuring the United States is the global leader on clean transportation.

H.R. 4468 would seriously hamper the EPA's ability to address the worsening

climate crisis and air pollution for vehicles. It would also limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, create uncertainty for American automakers, hurt American global leadership, weaken our ability to compete with China, and deny Americans the immense public health and environmental benefits of EPA's proposed standards.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member of our Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), who is a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), who is a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

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

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

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

The amazing thing to me is that today during the debate, I heard very few statements on the part of the Republicans about clean air.

This is all about the Clean Air Act and the fact that the EPA is trying to set standards that will eliminate pollution and make it easier for people to breathe and not be negatively impacted by pollution that is in the air. What the Republicans want to do is gut the Clean Air Act so those standards cannot be put in place.

Now, they also mentioned China constantly, over and over again. The fact of the matter is that with this bill, they would be putting China in charge. China is the country--Beijing--that imposes the mandates. What the EPA does is basically say in order to achieve cleaner air, we are saying to the car manufacturers, they have to do certain things, but they still have the choice of what kind of vehicles to produce, whether it be a hybrid, an electric, or a gasoline-combustion vehicle.

All those vehicles are still going to be available, are still going to be manufactured. It is just that they are going to have fewer or no emissions, and the air will be cleaner for Americans to breathe.

Now, the ultimate thing is when the Republicans talk about the workers and the jobs. The fact of the matter is, the United Auto Workers--which represents most of the car makers, or all of them as far as I know--are opposed to this bill. The reason for their opposition is because they want to continue to manufacture cars.

They don't want China to continue to innovate and essentially start to corner the world market on electric vehicles or even other vehicles. If that happens, the number of jobs here in the United States will be diminished. They are saying we oppose this bill because we want to create more cars and create more jobs, and we want the United States to continue to be the leader.

For all these reasons--for cleaner air, to keep American leadership above any competition with China, to make sure there continue to be choices with the cars that you buy through your manufacturers--I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this bill, which I think is going to take away the American leadership in car manufacturing and innovation and so many other things.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would revise the look-back portion of the bill that requires EPA to revise all previous regulations to conform with the bill's vague metrics on limiting availability of vehicles.

This amendment would shorten this period to only apply to rules finalized under the Biden administration, so please understand what they are doing here is saying that the only thing we are going to revoke, essentially, are the rules that were finalized under President Biden. I mean, nothing could be clearer that this amendment is based on politics and not policy by limiting the revocation to the Biden administration.

This amendment does not improve the legislation in any way. It fails to address the fundamental problems with the underlying bill. The amendment is essentially trying to go back in time to the failed policies of the Trump EPA. We would literally be moving backwards in our efforts to address the climate crisis and decarbonize the transportation sector and trying to eliminate pollution that affects Americans.

The amendment doesn't address any of the concerns that my Republican colleagues claim to have about electric vehicles. This amendment simply doubles down on Republicans' attacks on EPA's authority, public health, and regulatory certainty.

It does absolutely nothing to support our domestic vehicle manufacturing industry, like boost American competitiveness, counter China, or strengthen our economy.

This is just blatantly political, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment as well as the underlying bill.

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