Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers".

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), 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, last night the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 242, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation: H.R. 1048, H.J. Res. 24, and H.J. Res. 75.

The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75 under closed rules. The rule provides each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their designees. Additionally, the rule provides each a motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1048 under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divide and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their designees. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule before us today provides Congress with another opportunity to take a stand for consumer choice in America and take a stand against our Nation's foreign adversaries who continue to infiltrate colleges and universities across the Nation.

The DETERRENT Act, one of the bills considered under this rule, offers a necessary injection of transparency, accountability, and clarity to foreign gift reporting requirements for colleges and universities. It offers legislative prescriptions that are long overdue.

Under current law, section 117 of the Higher Education Act, colleges and universities must adhere to reporting requirements related to foreign donations. However, many fail to do so because of how weak the current law actually is.

A 2019 Senate report found that up to 70 percent of colleges and universities fail to comply with reporting requirements outlined in section 117 of the Higher Education Act. You heard that right. Up to 70 percent of colleges and universities fail to comply.

The DETERRENT Act updates section 117 to provide the very clarity and guidance that colleges and universities need to ensure they properly disclose foreign sources of funding and remain in compliance. It also adds a set of razor-sharp teeth to current law to hold colleges and universities accountable for failing to comply with section 117. Again, the DETERRENT Act offers legislative prescriptions that are long overdue.

The other two pieces of legislation under consideration via today's rule are two separate Congressional Review Act resolutions: H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75. These two CRAs will strike down separate rules from the Department of Energy that were finalized under the Biden administration.

H.J. Res. 24 overturns a wrongheaded midnight rule from the Department of Energy relating to conservation standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. The Department of Energy issued this final rule a mere 2 days before Christmas last year. This is yet another gift from the Biden administration that nobody asked for.

This midnight rule piles on additional costs to the shoulders of Main Street businesses, while at the very same time takes a hatchet to consumer choice.

H.J. Res. 75 will overturn yet another wrongheaded rule from the Department of Energy related to conservation standards for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers.

Like the previous rule from the Department of Energy that was just discussed, this rule is yet another example of the regulatory barrage that the Biden administration launched against Main Street as well as consumers. Thankfully, the regulatory warfare of the past 4 years is over. Republicans are back in charge.

Mr. Speaker, regulating this country into the ground benefits absolutely no one. It does not benefit Americans and their families. It does not benefit free enterprise and entrepreneurs. It does not benefit small businesses. Nobody wins when the Federal Government goes hog wild with regulations.

These two CRAs that the House will consider under this rule will help us break out the shovels and bury the Department of Energy's rules in the grave. They won't be missed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent time last week in my district, too, talking to people. I spend time every weekend talking to the people in my district. Do you know what they complain about the most? Unnecessary rules and regulations.

I met today with folks from the homebuilding industry. They can document that 25 percent of the rules related to homebuilding are unnecessary and drive up the costs of doing business for homes. We need new homes everywhere.

My colleagues are trying to make it look like what we are doing is frivolous. Mr. Speaker, this is far from frivolous. We in Congress are taking back our authority from unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats who, in the dark of night, write unnecessary rules and regulations that burden the American people and drive up the cost of business and drive up the cost of products.

It is important for us to have further discussion on this critical Congressional Review Act that we are operating under. The Congressional Review Act agenda as a whole is important. My Democratic colleagues are falling into a repeated trap of copying and pasting comments these days. It is true of remarks for rule debate, as well. Every week, they come before this body to complain that we are undoing this or that regulation and that our collective time could be better spent

elsewhere. Well, Republicans beg to differ.

The Congressional Review Act provides the American people the greatest possible say over the endless tide of regulations that always stem from Democratic administrations, and it is one of the greatest keepers of Congress' Article I authority. It is also upsetting in many ways that the Democrats complain we are doing these individual rules when they opposed the Midnight Rules Relief Act, where we could have taken care of these all in one fell swoop.

Let's not forget it was a Democrat, President Clinton, who signed the Congressional Review Act into law on a bipartisan basis, but our colleagues have obviously fallen far from those past overtures of consensus and common sense.

Republicans and President Trump are constantly emphasizing common sense, which is not very common from the other side of the aisle. Many Members of Congress provide lipservice to excessive rules and regulations, but the Congressional Review Act provides Congress the ability to put our money where our mouth is.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has tabulated that Federal regulations impose a cost of $1.9 trillion on the economy. This averages out to more than $14,000 imposed on every American household, a hidden regulatory tax that is eating up American paychecks.

The amount of rules far exceeds statutes by Congress. In 2022 alone, there were more than 3,100 rules issued by agencies compared to 247 laws passed by Congress. Yet, despite these figures, my Democratic colleagues can't seem to muster the courage to find one regulation that they believe is worthy of repeal.

The fact is that we have a very limited window under the Congressional Review Act to expunge these harmful rules, again, written by unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats. These rules continue to drive up costs for American families and take away consumer choices.

I am so glad that we are taking up these CRA resolutions, ones that would protect consumer choice and competitive prices for freezers, refrigerators, and walk-in coolers.

To my colleagues on the other side, these may seem like small issues to you, but driving up the cost of appliances is a regressive approach that will hurt low-and middle-income Americans the most. Regulating every possible square inch of the economy in the name of your zealous green radicalism may give the coastal elites a sense of accomplishment, but it is doing real harm to Americans.

When the Congressional Review Act window is completed, we are going to be tabulating the cost of these regulations, as well as the votes to repeal them. It may seem like a little bit of cost here and there, but wait until you see the cumulative price. I hope my colleagues can heed the warning, but if the past is prologue, I won't be holding my breath.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before. They are cutting and pasting and saying the same things over and over again. Fear-mongering is beneath the dignity of this body. That is not what we are here to do.

We have told our colleagues over and over, and they know this, but they refuse to acknowledge it. Nothing we have done this session has touched the sanctity of Social Security, nothing. In fact, President Trump has over and over again said that he will not touch the sanctity of Social Security. I have said that, and our colleagues have said that. We have done nothing.

Putting out false information to the American people is really unfortunate because it does frighten people. However, we have the facts on our side, Mr. Speaker, and the facts are that no bills we passed, the budget bill nor the Trump administration continuing resolution, hurt in any way Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, or any other program that the Federal Government has a contract with the American people on. It is time for our colleagues to stop saying that.

In fact, Republicans sued over ads that were being run in certain districts last week, and the Democrats had to pull those ads because the court ruled that they were not factual. They were the same kinds of things that are being said on this floor day after day.

Nonetheless, let's get back to the bill at hand: the rule that we are discussing and the underlying bill of that rule.

We have talked in the abstract, but I would like to drill down on the actual problems this bill would address and the specific failures of disclosure that this bill addresses.

A 2019 Senate report found that up to 70 percent of all institutions, these are postsecondary institutions, failed to comply with section 117 and those that do not comply often underreport.

Investigations by the Trump administration discovered that there was $6.5 billion in previously undisclosed gifts and contributions provided to so-called elite colleges, and this money came from countries that pose serious national security threats to our country.

In 2020, the Department estimated that schools had anonymously accepted $8.4 billion in foreign money over the past decade.

Let's keep in mind that the Biden administration did not utilize section 117 authorities at all in its 4 years. You heard that correctly, Mr. Speaker. In 4 years, the Biden administration did not enforce section 117. Despite the Trump administration's uncovering and investigating, the Biden administration didn't invoke section 117 at all, not once.

Let's turn to some more recent examples.

In April 2023, the former chair of Harvard University's chemistry and chemical biology department was sentenced to prison for lying about his affiliation with and income from the Wuhan University of Technology in Wuhan, China.

In July 2024, University of Maryland, College Park paid $500,000 for failing to disclose foreign funding from the Chinese companies of three researchers who simultaneously received Federal grants.

In September 2024, the Research Foundation of the State University of New York paid $313,574 after a scientist failed to disclose Chinese support.

In December 2024, the University of Delaware paid $700,000 for not disclosing that a faculty member receiving a NASA grant taught at a Chinese university.

A 2024 joint investigation between the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and the House Committee on Education and Workforce found 21 joint U.S.-Chinese education institutes. A case study of two such institutes, UC Berkeley and Georgia Institute of Technology, revealed both a lack of proper disclosure under section 117 and research with clear military applications. Just those two schools alone totaled over $40 million in unreported contracts with China.

Clearly, Congress needs to do more to bring these unreported contracts, gifts, and funding sources of all sorts into the public eye. Taxpayer dollars are going to these universities. The public is owed the facts about where the rest of these funds are coming from.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, give me a break. We are to believe that something printed on the front page of The Washington Post is always true? Mr. Speaker, only 31 percent of the American people have any faith in the print media in this country, and they are very, very wise in that assessment. That is almost as low as the 27 percent of Americans who have faith in the Democratic Party right now.

I would like to clarify something else that was said. It was said that Republicans hate universities or there is a question as to why we hate universities. Mr. Speaker, we don't hate universities. We just want the universities to be honest, and we want them to be transparent. That is one of the bills we are discussing here today that this rule covers. It is very important that we have transparency throughout our government, and that is what Republicans want.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and the gentlewoman seem to believe that the new personnel structure at the Department of Education couldn't possibly implement this bill, yet our colleagues failed to mention the fact that section 117 investigations weren't invoked a single time under the Biden administration. What were the people at the section 117 desk doing under President Biden's watch? They were collecting a check, apparently, or perhaps they were asleep at the switch, which is very fitting for the Biden era.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump has made it clear that the Department of Education will implement the laws that we pass here in Congress until such time as the full transition is made with the Department.

The number of personnel at the Department doesn't really matter if you don't have the political will to carry out the authorities. I know that the people in the Department of Education will carry out these authorities until such time as the Department does not exist, and at that time, whatever laws exist will be implemented by appropriate agencies and departments.

Whatever we do is going to be better than what was done under the Biden administration when this law was never enforced and should have been.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would characterize what we are doing here today as the people's business. We are the people's House. We are here to look after the American people in the best way that we can. We are fulfilling our constitutional duties. Unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats pass rules and regulations in this city every day that they should not be passing.

Congress gave us the ability to stop them, and my colleagues are complaining that we are wasting time, that it is slow and inefficient to implement the Congressional Review Act. It is slow and inefficient, but we passed a bill called the Midnight Rules Relief Act primarily with Republican votes that would have allowed Congress to dispense with multiple rules and regulations under one bill. That bill is currently in the Senate, and if that would pass and be signed by the President, we could all save time and be much more efficient. We are doing the people's work today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, being lectured to about how we feel about anti-Semitism on our side of the aisle is not something that I am used to hearing. It is the Republicans who have led the fight against anti-Semitism on our college campuses.

Mr. Speaker, we did make Democratic amendments in order in this rule. If my colleague had submitted his amendment in a more timely fashion and not just a few minutes before the Rules Committee met yesterday, we would have certainly had a chance to consider it. The deadline for submitting amendments was last Thursday, and that gives us an opportunity to review the amendments to see what can be put in.

Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to follow the rules for deadlines because that is very important for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I am not really amenable to hearing people criticize us about our response to anti-Semitism when I fight it every day of my life. I am wearing my necklace that I wear every day, which says: ``Bring Them Home.'' I am wearing my yellow ribbon. Being told that I am not sympathetic to fighting anti-Semitism is not something that I take lightly.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are nearly at the end of this, and I don't believe that we need to have a colloquy. We each have an opportunity for closing comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are laser focused on governing and advancing legislation that addresses pertinent issues across the Nation. It is unfortunate that our colleagues do not agree that protecting Americans from unnecessary rules and regulations is not something that is important to them.

It is very important to us, and we are following regular order here. The Rules Committee is represented by me, the chair, on this important rule today. That is significant.

The three pieces of legislation that will be considered under the rule that will be debated tomorrow are part of our governing efforts and are in alignment with the mandate that Americans gave us last November.

Shielding consumer choice and combating foreign influence within higher education are issues that Americans care about. We have heard their concerns, and we are addressing them yet again this week.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, ``yes'' on the rule, and then, later, ``yes'' on the bills that will be presented as a result of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Chairwoman Foxx, for the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today yet again to expose to the American public the misplaced priorities of the House Republican Conference and the Republican majority here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority gaveled us out of session 11 days ago. Here we are back in Washington, D.C. Of course, for us, it feels a lot like ``Groundhog Day'' because, notwithstanding all the economic turmoil, the conflicts across the globe, the various ways in which this administration is making life harder for the people of Colorado, for folks across our country, notwithstanding all the challenges that our country is grappling with, House Republicans have decided to spend this week debating what? Three bills: walk-in freezers, commercial refrigerators, and giving new responsibilities to a Department, the Department of Education, that they are seeking to dismantle, that they want to abolish. That is what we are debating here today, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to every word of the chairwoman's address outlining every component of the bills that we are considering, but for folks who are watching, for those who have graced us with their presence in the gallery, please understand the three bills: one regulating commercial refrigerators; another regulating walk-in refrigerators; and the third, a bill to give new responsibilities to an agency that they are seeking to destroy. That is it. That is what we are debating this week in Washington, D.C.

If folks in the gallery stay here through the week, that is what you will hear. You will hear a debate today, a debate tomorrow, and a debate on Thursday on those three bills.

I suspect that the folks who are watching this debate, Mr. Speaker, would agree with me that there are better things for us to spend our time on here in Washington, D.C., than debating walk-in refrigerators. Seriously? I don't know, maybe for Madam Chairwoman it is really important to the people of North Carolina. She may have a lot of constituents who have walk-in refrigerators. I don't know.

For me, I can tell you I just spent a week in Colorado, in the rural communities that I represent, hosting townhalls, visiting with folks in my community, constituents, ranchers, farmers, teachers, working families, packed townhalls. At those townhalls, do you know the one subject that no one brought up? Commercial refrigerators. It never came up.

At a townhall that we held 3 days ago with over a thousand people in my community, no one at that townhall approached me and said: ``Congressman, can you please go back to Washington and pass legislation on commercial refrigerators? It is really important.'' Nobody said that.

They are really concerned about the Republicans' plan to gut Medicaid. They are pretty concerned about the Republican plans to dismantle Social Security offices across the country. They are deeply concerned about reports that this administration is going to end phone line customer service for senior citizens who are relying on Social Security. They are pretty concerned about a Secretary of Defense who apparently is sending out war plans on unencrypted messaging apps, putting our national security at risk.

Those are the topics that my constituents care about. Commercial refrigerators is not one of them.

You can tell the frustration, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, in my voice. It is the frustration borne from having to come to the floor every week and debate appliances. Can the Republicans just put all the appliance bills in for consideration for 1 week? We can just do them all and then be done with it, and we can move on to having a debate about defending Medicaid, defending healthcare for the millions of Americans who rely on it. Is that too much to ask?

I just would beg of the chairwoman, I understand this is an important priority to her. It is important to the Republican Conference. We get it. They are obsessed with appliance regulation. After this week, can we please just be done with these appliance resolutions and get back to debating the issues that the American people expect us to debate?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I am not trying to make their legislation on commercial freezers look frivolous. It is frivolous. The American people understand that. They get it. Maybe there are a lot of people in the chairwoman's district buying commercial freezers. Again, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you it is not the top priority of the people whom I represent in northern Colorado and in western Colorado. It is far from it.

Now, I must say, I did hear with interest the chairwoman reference visiting with her constituents. I would simply say that my understanding was that the chairwoman doesn't do townhalls. I think she recently said in an interview that she doesn't do townhalls because they are an opportunity for constituents to yell at their Congressperson. So I find it of great interest.

I would just encourage the chairwoman and every member of the Republican caucus to do a townhall. They are nothing to be afraid of. It is a great opportunity to visit with our constituents. Perhaps if the gentlewoman would do that, she would come away with the same conclusion that I did, which is that the legislation we are considering today is a waste of time and grossly disproportionate to the priorities of the American people. It is simple.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

First, I just want to note, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps it is a point of information for your purposes, you admonished the prior speaker, the ranking member, for not making personalities, or rather making personalities against the President. My understanding is the only person he referenced throughout the duration of his speech was Elon Musk. So I am not sure if that was an accident on your part or if that is intentional, and perhaps the Speaker can clarify because I don't believe he referenced President Trump, but apparently you mistook his references to Elon Musk as a reference to the President.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that would be an important thing to clarify in the House moving forward that references to Elon Musk will be treated as references to the President of the United States, which is apparently what the Speaker is doing, that if someone references Elon Musk, that the Chair, that the Speaker will treat it as though we are referencing the President.

It is perhaps a point of clarification for a future time. I will say this, before yielding some time to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico, the chairwoman made reference to supposed fear-mongering regarding Social Security. It isn't fear-mongering. It is on the front page of The Washington Post.

I will read you the quote: ``Elon Musk put a big target on the Social Security Administration in the first weeks of the Trump administration.''

So it is not fear-mongering to share on this floor the concerns that have been articulated by our constituents regarding the dismantling of the Social Security Administration that President Trump and his administration is engaged in. It happens to be the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

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

I understand the chairwoman apparently now is saying she won't believe The Washington Post articles. I wonder if she will believe the sentiments of her own colleagues? I believe it was Mr. Lawler from New York who a week ago was bemoaning online the closure of one of the Social Security offices in his own district.

What are we talking about? These offices are being closed in North Carolina, as well, I believe. This isn't some fictional, imaginary hypothetical. The Social Security Administration is closing down offices. Wait times are getting longer.

I just would urge my colleague, whom I have great respect for, to visit with her own constituents, and I suspect that they would share the same frustrations that I am articulating here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 433, the Department of Education Protection Act, which would shield the U.S. Department of Education from efforts to dismantle the agency and ensure that every student receives the education they deserve.

As my colleague Representative Leger Fernandez already articulated, it makes no sense that Republicans have pushed forward a bill today to give more responsibilities to an agency that they are trying actively to dismantle.

Nonetheless, there is a way forward to save teachers and students and rural schools across the country, including back in Colorado, and that is by ensuring that the Department of Education Protection Act receives a vote here on the House floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes) to discuss this bill. Mrs. Hayes is the author and the sponsor of this legislation, a former public schoolteacher, and a National Teacher of the Year. She is someone who has spent her life serving the students, the young folks, and the working families of the people of Connecticut.

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

Mr. Speaker, some of this can get lost in translation, so I will try make this very simple. The gentlewoman, who I respect, wants to abolish the Department of Education. She is unabashed about that. She has voted to close the Department of Education. She supports the President's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. I presume she supports the President's efforts to reduce the workforce by half. Mr. Speaker, 50 percent of the personnel in the Department of Education are now gone on administrative leave.

Yet, here we are today, debating her bill to create new responsibilities, new requirements, new duties on the very department she seeks to destroy.

What are we doing here?

If they don't want the Department of Education--again, that is their view; they don't want a Federal Department of Education; they are not hiding that--why are we debating a bill to give the Department of Education more power? It is insanity, insanity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply echo the sentiments that have been expressed by so many of my colleagues that the policies that Republicans are pursuing here on the House floor are not the priorities of the American people. I think we all would be far better served if we debated the actual issues of the day, such as the challenges that Representative Stansbury and so many others described so eloquently.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about townhalls. I don't quite understand, and perhaps the gentlewoman would be willing to expound upon her opposition and the opposition of so many of my colleagues in the Republican Conference to doing townhalls.

I have held 100 townhalls over the course of the time that I have had the privilege of representing Colorado in the United States Congress. We have held them everywhere in my district. I represent communities and counties that voted for Donald Trump, and I have held townhalls and will continue to hold townhalls in those communities because my obligation is to represent every person in western Colorado and in northern Colorado in the district that I serve.

My job is to be accessible to my constituents regardless of their political beliefs. I understand that Republicans are scared right now to host townhalls because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that the policies that the majority is pursuing in Washington are deeply unpopular.

If I spent my week in Washington pushing bills on commercial freezers, I would probably be a little nervous to do a townhall back in my district, too. I get it. I understand where Republicans are coming from. However, maybe the way forward is to spend our time in Washington working on matters of substance. If we do that, I can promise Republicans that their townhalls will go just fine. They will go just fine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman) is still here, but I will relay the substance of the chairwoman's remarks regarding his amendment and the timing of his amendment submission.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have only a few minutes of debate left. As the chairwoman said, this is the people's House, a House that I have great reverence for.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, via the Speaker, make a request to the chairwoman to engage in a brief colloquy. Perhaps that could provide the viewing public a sense of real debate, as opposed to us just giving speeches.

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

Mr. Speaker, with much respect to the gentlewoman, I think that is a shame because I think the American people ought to be able to hear a fair and full exchange of views in an active debate. I think that is far more present when we actually have a colloquy as opposed to just making speeches.

I simply say that the question I was going to pose to the chairwoman is that she has made clear that these three bills, the bill to give more power to the Department of Education that she seeks to dismantle and bills on the regulation standards for refrigerant walk-in freezers and commercial refrigerators, that those bills are very important to the House Republican Conference, that they are a top priority. Interestingly enough, not a single Republican Member of Congress in the last hour that we have had allocated for debate has indulged us with their presence today to come to the floor and extol the virtues of the legislation that Republicans have pursued on commercial refrigerators. I wonder why. It is probably not an accident.

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine that there are a lot of Republican Members of Congress who wanted to sign up to come do floor debate today on commercial refrigerators. In light of the biggest mishap on a national security front in decades and in light of all of the challenges that our country is facing, debating refrigerators apparently was not something that many of my chairwoman's colleagues wanted to do.

Nonetheless, I am grateful that we have had an opportunity to share with the American public and give them full transparency into how the Republicans have decided to spend their time and their majority here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will proceed with a few more days of debate. I am sure Republicans will pass their bills on commercial freezers and walk-in refrigerators, and then we will be back next week. One can only hope that Republicans will have seen the light by then and that we won't be up for appliance week number 4, 5, 6, or whatever it is now.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to actually debate substantive issues, there is an easy way to do it: opposing the previous question and opposing the rule and the underlying bills so that the House can get back to doing the people's work.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 24, the fourth Republican resolution this Congress to dismantle energy conservation standards for appliances. This harmful resolution guts a Department of Energy efficiency rule for walk-in coolers and freezers, which will increase energy costs for businesses and consumers. Let me stress that again. If this rule is repealed, businesses and consumers will have increased energy costs. Since it is a Congressional Review Act resolution, it prevents the Department of Energy from ever issuing substantially similar standards in the future.

Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet and facing the reality that Republicans may soon strip them and their families of healthcare, it is shocking that House Republicans are spending another day here on the floor focusing on repealing commonsense energy efficiency standards that save businesses and consumers money.

This whole Congress has been a revolving door of resolution after resolution attacking conservation standards for different appliances. In fact, I should point out, we were on the floor just yesterday afternoon debating an effort to repeal another energy efficiency standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers.

Instead of investigating--which is what they should be doing--the shocking and unprecedented breach of security and leaked military strikes from top Trump national security officials, which threatens our national security and our defense, we are here once again wasting valuable floor time debating energy efficiency standards.

Maybe we should be taking action to protect Social Security from the Trump administration's funding cuts that could stop seniors from getting the benefits they earned through a lifetime of work. My constituents are already telling me they can't even call the Social Security office anymore. There is nobody there. They have cut the staff. They have cut the phone service. They can't even access the Social Security Administration anymore under the Trump administration.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we should be reversing the Trump administration's actions to close the Department of Education and rip away funding from students, teachers, and schools.

House Republicans are not likely to take on any of these actions that I suggested because they refuse to take on President Trump, even when he is breaking the law. It is clear that my Republican colleagues do not have their priorities in order. In fact, it seems to me their only priority is securing giant tax breaks for their billionaire buddies at the expense of American families and businesses. H.J. Res. 24 fits right into the Republican agenda of raising costs on hardworking Americans.

Now, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the irony of this resolution. President Trump and Republicans ran on a promise to cut energy costs in half in his first year. Yet, here we are once again wasting precious time on the floor with a resolution that would raise energy costs for American businesses by wasting more energy.

The energy efficiency standards under threat today for walk-in refrigerators and freezers will save American businesses up to $6.5 billion on utility bills over the next 30 years. These businesses include restaurants, convenience stores, and supermarkets across the country, and Republicans' anti-efficiency agenda will rob them of these cost savings.

This is especially concerning at a time when we are hearing more and more stories about the damaging impacts of Trump's extreme tariffs, the rising cost of groceries, and the chaos and uncertainty that Trump is bringing every day to our economy.

People are concerned about a Trump recession. That is what they are worried about today. That is what I hear when I go home. However, Republicans don't care about everyday Americans. They only care about doing the bidding of their billionaire corporate buddies at the expense of consumers and working families.

Energy efficiency standards for appliances are designed to reduce energy use and climate pollution while also saving consumers and businesses money. Reducing an appliance's energy use also helps decrease stress on the electric grid.

The resolution today is proof that my Republican colleagues' concern about grid stress--we had a hearing yesterday on that--and the increased load growth from data centers and American manufacturing are hollow and merely lip service. If Republicans truly cared about reducing stress on the electric grid, which is what they said yesterday at the hearing, they would stop dismantling energy efficiency standards designed to ease strain on future electric grid capacity.

The true intent of this anti-efficiency resolution is not to help American businesses, but to line the pockets of their billionaire cronies and oil and gas friends. You guessed it, less efficient appliances means more profits for Big Oil and Gas.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Energy.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Republicans make it sound like no one supports these standards, like they came out of nowhere and are an incredible government overreach. Of course, that is not true.

Manufacturers support these efficiency standards. They provide clarity to industry. Manufacturers support the Department of Energy's rule because it provides clear guidance. If this rule is revoked, it creates regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers.

The Department of Energy worked with manufacturers and advocates to ensure that these standards were feasible and justifiable. Unlike my colleagues across the aisle, the Department of Energy went through a prolonged process that engaged extensively with experts and worked to address their concerns.

In fact, in recently submitted comments regarding the delay and the effective date for the standards, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, a trade group that represents many of the manufacturers of these walk-in coolers, asserted strong support for proceeding with the standards as published in the Federal Register in December of last year.

Lennox, a manufacturer of these walk-in systems, also submitted comments asserting support for proceeding with the standards as finalized. Lennox's comments also state: ``The final rule provides regulatory predictability regarding . . . energy conservation standards through 2031, providing a stable planning horizon.''

These comments are an important reminder that regulatory uncertainty from killing a standard, as the resolution before us today would do, costs businesses money. My colleagues across the aisle are more concerned with slashing any and every regulation they can find than with engaging in thoughtful and well-reasoned policy.

This is politics at its worst, so I oppose this resolution.

I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues across the aisle keep talking about the costs of these standards to businesses, but I think it is important to get the facts straight. The new standards for walk-in coolers don't go into effect until 2027 for some products and 2028 for others. This means that if a business needs to replace these units anytime in the next couple of years, the products on the market now will be available to them. They don't have to get rid of the refrigerators they want. It is when they buy a new one.

Whenever a business does need to replace the units, the products on the market will save them money. Specifically, these standards will save, as I mentioned, $6.5 billion in utility bills over 30 years. DOE estimates the payback period for these products is 3 years for refrigerator systems and 1.6 years for non-display doors. After those 3 years or, in the other case, 1.6 years, you are actually saving money every year.

This means that after the first couple of years of ownership, these products start saving businesses a lot of money. This is real money.

The Republicans talked about upfront costs. There may be some upfront costs, but over the period of time after those first couple of years, businesses are saving money.

If Republicans are actually concerned about the small businesses in their communities, and if they are really concerned about costs being passed down to consumers, they would be standing up to the Trump administration and pushing back on tariffs.

I am mentioning the tariffs today because the President, again, is starting to impose new tariffs. The last one was on automobiles. Large appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines rely, in part, on steel, making them extremely vulnerable to price increases

from Trump's tariffs on steel, which are already in place.

In the aftermath of steel and aluminum tariffs during Trump's first term, talking about the first term now, not the new one, major appliances showed price increases of between 5 and 10 percent.

If my colleagues are concerned about the prices, they should be speaking out against what Trump is doing with these tariffs, not to mention the fact that the tariffs impose additional costs on consumers. Again, the uncertainty--the back and forth, put the tariffs on, take the tariffs off--is the reason that the stock market has been so volatile. People don't know with certainty what is going on with this administration.

We are facing policies from the Trump administration that will increase everyday costs for households and businesses. Instead of trying to fight these increases, Republicans are more concerned with the upfront costs of walk-in coolers in 2028. I don't know what to say except that it is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, yesterday, Donald Trump made one of the dumbest decisions he has ever made as President, and that is saying something. The tariffs Donald Trump approved yesterday are far, far worse than we thought. It is the largest tax hike on families since World War II.

Yesterday was not ``Liberation Day''; it was tax day. ``Middle class, pay more taxes,'' Donald Trump is telling you. That is what the day is all about.

This morning, naturally, the markets are plunging. The Dow is down 800 points, and the S&P is already on track for its worst day in years. Donald Trump has singlehandedly created a financial forest fire.

Trump called yesterday ``Liberation Day.'' Nobody was feeling even close to liberated--quite the opposite. American families are learning the hard way that Donald Trump has them right in the middle of a pincer and is squeezing them on both sides.

On the one side, Donald Trump is pushing tariffs that will cost working families an extra $5,000 a year, and by his own admission, he ``could not care less.'' On the other side, Donald Trump is working with Republicans to gut vital programs working families rely on, like Medicaid, Social Security, veterans programs.

So there is a pincer: Trump's tariffs raise costs and pick people's pockets on one side, and Trump's budget and his

budget cuts are taking away healthcare and benefits and veterans' care on the other side.

Now, there are smart ways to use tariffs, and there are dumb ways to use tariffs. Donald Trump is using tariffs in the dumbest way imaginable. In fact, Donald Trump slapped tariffs on penguins and not on Putin. Trump sanctioned the Heard and McDonald Islands, only inhabited by penguins. That is what happens when you don't have a clue as to what you are doing. You fire air traffic controllers, dismantle disease-outbreak monitoring, sabotage Social Security and VA operations, censor climate data, defund public schools, and declare a trade war on penguins.

What is going on? Prices on groceries, prices on electronics, appliances, metal, beer, furniture, fertilizer, and so much more will go up. People's retirements are in peril as markets are in turmoil across the globe. And Donald Trump says, ``I couldn't care less.'' That is his quote, America. You are getting squeezed on both sides by his tariffs and his budget, and he says, ``I couldn't care less.''

The American people are learning quickly that Donald Trump is breaking all the promises he made in the campaign and he is not on their side. He couldn't care less. It is truly unbelievable to watch the sheer destruction Republicans are inflicting on Americans.

We aren't even 100 days into President Trump's second term, and the Republicans this week will plow ahead to take away people's Medicaid. They are letting Elon Musk sabotage Social Security. He says it is a Ponzi scheme. He says he is OK if it is eliminated. What do these rich people know about how middle-class people struggle? It is a little coterie of billionaires that is running policy.

As I said, the middle class is getting squeezed by the pincers on both sides.

What are they doing firing tens of thousands of epidemic responders, healthcare workers, food inspectors, abandoning veterans? And now, on top of all of that--it has been bad enough before ``Liberation Day,'' which is tax day--Americans are going to pay $5,000 a year through his tariffs. For what? Why are they doing all this? Why would they do all this? Why would they hurt people, so many people in so many ways? Why would they have that pincer squeeze them? I will tell you why. One thing. One reason. Tax breaks for the billionaires. As I said, this is a coterie of billionaires running the government--Trump and Musk and Lutnick and so many others. You heard the net worth of his Cabinet; it is incredible. Cutting taxes for billionaires makes them squeeze the American people. It is utterly disgusting.

President Trump should reverse course on his disastrous tariffs immediately--immediately--or else he risks plunging America into a recession. Some of the leading banks, the leading financial analysts with no ax to grind, have greatly increased the odds that we will have a recession because of what Trump is doing.

What President walks mindlessly into a recession, which means it is harder to get a job, harder to keep a job, harder to pay the bills? What President does that?

So I am calling on the House and Speaker Johnson, given how bad Trump's tariffs are--they now know it--to come back into session and vote on the Senate's bipartisan bill undoing the tariffs on Canada, the bill we passed yesterday with bipartisan support because a few Republicans had the courage of their convictions and voted against the President and for Senator Kaine's very, very timely and needed bill. If the Speaker really cares about the American people and the costs they would bear by these tariffs, he should call back the House and take up the Senate bill immediately.

The American people care about one thing above all--and they care about a lot of things, but at the top of the list is inflation. That is the No. 1 thing on people's minds. We heard that over and over again on last November's election day and ever since. And Donald Trump said in his campaign that he would reduce prices on day one when he got elected. He is doing just the opposite. He is not reducing prices; he is dramatically raising them $5,000 a year on the average American family. And by his own omission, Donald Trump said ``I couldn't care less.''

Government Funding

Mr. President, on the budget, this week, Donald Trump and the Republican Party are hitting Americans with a brutal one-two punch.

On one side, Trump has hit Americans with a massive tax hike through his extremely dumb tariffs. On the other side--they are unfocused, just unfocused. On the other side, Senate Republicans are getting ready to take away vital programs, throw people off Medicaid--all so they can give massive tax breaks to billionaires. It is a brutal Republican pincer move, with American families trapped in the middle.

Trump's tariffs raise costs and pick people's pockets on one side, and Trump's budget cuts are taking away healthcare and benefits and veterans' care on the other side.

If Republicans pass their agenda, 80 million Americans will be at risk of losing coverage. Rural hospitals, community health centers, and nursing homes will be at the risk of closure.

If Republicans proceed this week, Senate Democrats will expose their agenda for the American people to see. We will pick their bill apart. We will put them on record. We will force Republicans to explain in multiple ways again and again and again why they want to cut taxes for the rich at the expense of working people.

Senate Republicans are so hell-bent on cutting taxes for billionaires, they seem ready to detonate the rules of the Senate and break their word to get it done. Republicans spent years preaching about preserving Senate rules and protecting regular order, but now that their billionaire tax cuts are on the line, the rules don't seem to matter for them.

We all know what is going on here. We know. Senate Republicans don't want to admit that their plan to make these tax cuts permanent will add $37 trillion to the debt--$37 trillion. That more than doubles the totality of our national debt today--more than doubles it. It is reckless, and it is dangerous.

So Republicans in essence want to pretend like their trillion-dollar tax cuts are free, like magic, or, as Chip Roy, one of the most conservative Republicans around here, said, like ``fairy dust.'' A middle school math student could tell you this is ridiculous.

House Republicans must tread carefully. I say that to them over there, particularly the ones on the hard right. If they go along with this dangerous gimmick hatched by Senate Republicans, they will pave the way to add $37 trillion to the debt. Republicans will forever incinerate any credibility they have to complain about debt and deficits.

When you go home, Senate Republicans, don't tell your constituents that you want to cut the debt--$37 trillion. And far worse than that, these billionaire tax breaks and the gargantuan deficit that they will create will haunt our children and our grandchildren with sky-high interest rates, a hobbled economy, and rampant inequality. It is not the world I want my grandchildren to grow up in.

House Republicans must not go along with this dangerous plan by Senate Republicans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as early as today, we expect to take up a budget resolution that will lay the groundwork for delivering on the Republican agenda. This resolution is the first step toward a final bill to make permanent the tax relief we implemented in 2017

and deliver a transformational investment in our border, national and energy security--all accompanied by substantial savings measures and commonsense reforms to our government.

And at the prospect of this, Democrats are losing their minds. Their opposition to the 2017 tax relief, of course, is well known. Since the day the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, and before, Democrats have attempted to mischaracterize--and some would say flatout lie--about this legislation.

In fact, the Washington Post Fact Checker has repeatedly issued three- and four-Pinocchio responses to Democrats' claims, which center around the falsehood that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was about handouts to corporations and billionaires.

The truth, of course, is not only did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut taxes for every income group, but it was working families--working families--not the wealthy, who received the greatest proportional benefit.

Let me just repeat that: The truth is that not only did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut tax rates for every income group, but it was working families, and not the wealthy, who received the greatest proportional benefit. Those are the facts.

But, of course, the facts have not gotten in the way of Democrats continuing to claim that extending this tax relief is about handouts to billionaires.

The Democrats' latest hysteria is centered around the application of budget rules we will use for this week's budget resolution. They claim that using current policy baseline is somehow destroying Senate rules, even though the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, which governs this budget resolution, clearly states that it is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee who determines the budget baseline used for budget resolutions.

The senior Senator from Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, confirmed that it is the chairman's role in a 2022 report when he was chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. And, of course, Democrats themselves have previously advocated for the use of a current policy baseline. They basically invented it back in 1977, shortly after the Budget Act was enacted.

Chairman Muskie, a Democrat from Maine and chairman of the Budget Committee, used a current policy baseline in his budget resolution because he thought it represented a more realistic benchmark.

More recently, President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget assumed $4.5 trillion of expiring tax cuts would be extended in the Democrat's baseline, matching current policy at the time.

Jump forward to the Biden administration's most recent budget, in which Democrats explained that:

Adjustments to the . . . baseline are needed to better

represent the deficit outlook under current policy and to

serve as a more appropriate benchmark against which to

measure policy changes.

So using the current policy baseline is not some bizarre new gimmick.

I should also note, of course, that the Senate Parliamentarian has deemed the Senate budget resolution, which uses the current policy baseline, in order and ready for floor consideration.

Democrats' sudden concern for saving money and protecting the character of the Senate is touching. Who would have guessed that the party that was so eager to tear down a fundamental Senate institution, mere months ago, by killing the Senate filibuster would suddenly develop such a passionate interest in defending the character of the Senate?

But their hysteria is misplaced.

I do understand that Democrats are uncomfortable with the idea of tax relief. When you think that government knows best and when your enthusiasm for new government programs is virtually unlimited, it is no surprise you would prefer to maximize the flow of taxpayer dollars to the government.

But Republicans believe, fundamentally, that Americans know best what to do with their money.

And so no matter how many times Democrats attempt to distort or outright lie about what we are trying to do here, Republicans intend to deliver a permanent extension of the tax relief that we passed in 2017.

Failing to extend this tax relief would result in a $2.6 trillion tax increase on those making less than $400,000 a year, as well as a $600 billion tax increase on small businesses.

A typical family of four making $80,000 a year would end up sending an additional $1,700 to the government next year--$1,700. I am quite sure they have better uses for that money than sending it to Uncle Sam.

I said ``make this tax relief permanent,'' and I do mean permanent. Senate Republicans are united with the President in viewing a temporary extension as unacceptable. Americans should not have to live in fear of a tax hike every few years. And small businesses, including family farms and ranches, like those in my home State of South Dakota, need certainty about the tax outlook so they can plan for the future. Making the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent will ensure that Americans' take- home pay does not go down, and it will have significant economic benefits.

The National Federation of Independent Business reports that making the small business section 199A deduction permanent would result in the creation of an additional 1.2 million jobs annually, with that number climbing as the law goes on.

And the Tax Foundation reports that long-run gross domestic product would increase by a substantial 1.1 percent. That means more jobs and more opportunities for American workers and, interestingly enough, increasing Federal revenues, to the tune of about $3 trillion, which is the right way--the right way--by growing the economy.

When the economy is growing and expanding, people are working, they are making money, they are taking realizations, they are paying taxes. And do you know what? Government revenue goes up, not down, which is exactly what we experienced when we passed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, 8 years ago now.

As I said earlier, it was working families, not the wealthy, who received the greatest proportional benefit from that Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and it is working families, not the wealthy, who will see the greatest proportional benefit for making this tax relief permanent.

We are here to make sure that hard-working Americans have more breathing room, to make sure that our economy is providing them with jobs and opportunities and that they are not facing lower paychecks next year.

I was proud to help draft the 2017 tax relief and put more money in American families' pockets, and I look forward to permanently extending it in the near future.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.