Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026

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

Mr. Speaker, how long should the American people have to wait for our prices to come down? Republicans promised that prices would come down on day one. That was 589 days ago, coming up on 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my Republican colleagues again: How much longer do we all have to wait? Are they going to tell us, or is it a big surprise? Is it another week, another month, another President?

Mr. Speaker, when are my Republican colleagues going to take responsibility for the fact that they are in charge of everything? Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the executive branch. Hell, Republicans even control the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, because of Republican policies, the affordability crisis in the United States of America is getting worse. It is getting worse, so how long until they acknowledge that their stupid tariffs and their illegal war with Iran are driving up prices and making life harder for people?

Mr. Speaker, how long until the Epstein files are fully released? Some of us still haven't forgotten about that one or the fact that the files remain hidden and that Trump's involvement is being covered up despite congressional laws to the contrary.

How long does America have to wait until Republicans stop blaming everybody else and acknowledge that they have failed? I, for one, am sick of the gaslighting and the projection. I am sick of the broken promises. I am sick of the lies. I am sick of the corruption, the grift, and the greed. The people who I represent are sick of it, too.

Mr. Speaker, I do a farm tour every year. I represent a lot of rural communities and hundreds and hundreds of small- and medium-sized family farms that have been on the same land for generations. I heard a story about one farmer who is being asked to pay an extra $25,000 for a single piece of essential equipment because of Trump's tariffs. On top of that, the price of diesel is ruining their livelihood.

That is what this administration is doing to rural America, to small towns, and to the family farms that I represent. This President and this Republican Congress are destroying them. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are destroying them.

It is just as bad for consumers because Trump's tariffs, trade wars, and higher gas prices are getting passed along to us, as well. Gas is still over $4 a gallon. Ground beef is up 9 percent. Tomatoes and apples are up over 10 percent. Turkey is up 8 percent. Fish is up almost 8 percent. Cars are more expensive. Clothes are more expensive. Utility bills are more expensive. Everything is more expensive.

Inflation is killing people, and this Republican Congress has a bunch of bills today which will do nothing, nothing, nothing to lower prices.

I am going to talk about those bills in a second, but first let me say: Do you know who is not getting destroyed, Mr. Speaker? It is the rich, the powerful, and the well-connected. Those people who hang out in Mar-a-Lago are not getting destroyed. They are doing better than ever.

The multimillionaires and the billionaires are doing great, thanks to all the tax breaks that they got. Big Oil, Big Ag, and Big Tech get massive giveaways from Republicans. Some of those giveaways are in the bills we are considering today, one of which is a giveaway to the mining industry, and I am sure their lobbyists will get a nice, big bonus for getting that one across the finish line.

It is really gross. It is really gross. The rich and the powerful are doing better than ever while everyone else is seeing double-digit price increases, but don't bother trying to get Republicans to do anything about it. Let's look at their priorities so far this Congress.

Here is what they have been doing while gas is $4 a gallon. Let's see what they have been doing. They have been pretending to rename the Gulf of Mexico, pretending to rename Lake Ontario, pretending to rename The Kennedy Center, introducing a bill to put Donald Trump on Mount Rushmore, introducing a bill to make his birthday a national holiday, introducing a bill to put him on the $100 bill, introducing a bill to name Dulles International Airport after him, and introducing a bill to name the Washington Metro after him. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

These are actual bills that Republicans have introduced; and let us not forget letting the President pilfer taxpayer money to build a tacky ballroom, a stupid arch, and fix the airplane that Qatar bribed--I am sorry, excuse me, donated to him.

That is the focus of this Republican Congress. That is what this Republican Congress is obsessed with: worshipping Donald Trump, while you stress out about how you are going to pay your mortgage or your kid's tuition or your parents' medical bills.

So, I mean, while they worship Donald Trump, the American people have to struggle with how they are going to make ends meet. And they are not getting any help from anything that is going on in this Chamber.

The big Republican push this week is repassing a nonbinding resolution that condemns socialism. They already passed it, and it already does nothing. So I am not sure why they need to pass it again, but that is their big, important bill this week. You just heard it from the chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

What is their definition of ``socialism,'' you ask? What exactly are they condemning? I actually asked Republicans last time around in the Rules

Committee to define what they are condemning. To define socialism if you will. You all might be shocked. Social Security? Republicans condemn that as socialism. Medicare? That is socialism. Medicaid? That is socialism. Public schools? That is socialism. Food safety inspections? That is socialism. National parks? That is socialism. Public transit? You guessed it. You guessed it.

They must really think Americans are stupid. This is the same old Red Scare bs. By their definition, anyone in the United States who supports Medicaid is a socialist sympathizer. I mean, is Joe McCarthy coming back from the dead?

This is insane. It is literally crazy that this is the garbage that we are talking about while people are seeing their costs going through the roof. People can't afford to make ends meet, and this is what this Congress is focused on right now? I mean, come on.

While we are on the topic of condemning political ideology that we disagree with, let me ask: Where is their condemnation of fascism? I mean, the Trump administration weaponizes the government to silence opposition. It attacks the free press, wants to invade our allies, shoots innocent people in the streets, dehumanizes immigrants by saying that they ``poison the blood of our country,'' calls political opponents ``the enemy from within,'' and let's not forget they tried to overturn a free and fair election in 2020. Is that not fascism? Where is their condemnation of that? Silence. Silence. Nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I don't envy the gentlewoman's task today. She has to defend a pretty lousy agenda, and I think she knows it. But I just wish we could get some acknowledgment from the other side that things are not all fine and well in America right now.

Prices are up. Inflation is up. Bills are higher. Life is harder, and it is because of this President's policies. Instead of acknowledging it, it is like Republicans are living in an alternative reality. I mean, it is like what happened to the Republican Party? It doesn't exist anymore. It is like a cult.

We do have an affordability crisis. That is just a fact. Instead of working with us to address it, Republicans are pretending like it doesn't exist. Instead, we get more culture war nonsense and more giveaways to special interests.

But November is coming soon. Mr. Speaker, November is coming very soon, and I think my Republican colleagues are getting desperate. I think they know that the jig is up. I think they know that the American people are about to hold them accountable for all of their broken promises. I think that is why you are seeing this last-ditch attempt to throw the kitchen sink of culture war issues at the wall to see what sticks.

This is a lousy, awful, rotten rule. And by the way, it is totally closed. Nobody can offer any amendments to anything in this rule. It may even fail because we had a bipartisan vote yesterday in the Rules Committee against this rule, so we will see what happens on the floor. But, come on, people are hurting.

I would say to my Republican friends: Your constituents are hurting. They want us to do something to help them. They don't want this. They don't want this. They want something real. So if you can give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and you can bail out the Mar-a- Lago class, how about helping the average person, the hardworking men and women who are trying to make ends meet. That is what they want. That is what they expect.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina's explanation, and I know that those are the Republican talking points, but I have got news for you. Nobody is buying it.

I mean, I don't know whether my friend was home talking to her constituents over the break, but I was home talking to my constituents. I was in other States talking to voters, as well, and do you know what? Life has gotten harder for them. Prices of everything are through the roof. And to the extent that any working person got a small tax cut while the rich got these big tax cuts, millionaires and billionaires got all these big tax cuts, to the extent that they got that, any little tax break they received has been totally erased by the cost of living and by high gas prices because of this illegal, reckless war.

By the way, wouldn't you think that Congress would want to exercise its constitutional prerogatives and actually debate the war in Iran and actually vote whether to authorize it or not? We have been forced to try to bring privileged resolutions to the floor to try to get any kind of a debate on this. There should be hearings. There should be a full vote on whether to authorize this and whether or not people want to go on record as saying we are going to spend over $100 billion on this stupid, reckless war in Iran. By the way, that resulted in the Strait of Hormuz being closed, which was open before the war began. We are going to spend the money on that, but we are not going to spend it on helping alleviate the high cost of living on people in this country.

This Congress is the least productive Congress in history. This has been a total failure, a total failure.

I would just encourage my Republican colleagues, don't take my word for it. Look at every public opinion poll, including those coming out by FOX News and rightwing influencers. They will tell you: Nobody is buying it.

One of the things that I have heard over and over again during the August work period was that the American people are rightfully outraged that an out-of-control AI data center buildup is wreaking havoc on their communities. Data centers are driving up utility costs and polluting water supplies, all while Big Tech reaps record profits. Yet, now with November on the horizon, some House Republicans are acting as if they did not turbocharge the data center buildup.

I mean, a year ago, Republicans were bragging about giving tax breaks to Big Tech in order to build data centers across rural America. You can check it out yourselves. It is section 70421 of the big, ugly bill.

According to the Republican chairman of the tax writing committee, this provision would: significantly reduce barriers for large-scale, capital-intensive projects in rural areas, most notably, hyperscale data centers. That is the Republicans.

That provision alone cost the American taxpayers $40 billion. That is money that is going to Big Tech to build unpopular data centers instead of lowering the cost of healthcare and housing or groceries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled, ``Big, Beautiful Success Story: Rural America Rebound on the Horizon with New Opportunity Zone Incentives.''

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

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

Let me just say to my friend, the chair of the Rules Committee: You can't fool people. You just can't. I mean, people go to the supermarket. They have to pay their utility bills. They have to pay their rent. People are trying to see where they can afford a home.

I mean, they know what the reality is. To somehow say they are being beautiful, I mean, come on. That is ludicrous. That is assuming that people don't believe their real-life experiences every day.

She talks about the most productive Congress. I mean, 104 laws were passed in this Republican Congress. When the Democrats were last in charge, we passed 365 laws.

The issue is what do these laws do. We passed bills to try to expand healthcare for people. We passed bills to try to make sure that children had access to Head Start and to daycare. We passed bills to actually protect our environment. We passed bills to try to keep the world out of war. That is a big contrast to what we are seeing in this Republican Congress.

I would just say this: What Donald Trump has done with the acquiescence of the Republican majority is they have added a new tax on average people, close to $4,000. There is a $4,000 Trump tax on almost every family in this country. The people who don't feel it are the ones who benefited from the trillions of dollars in tax cuts given to millionaires and billionaires and big corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent also to include in the Record an article from Politico titled, ``Amazon's tax bill plunges after GOP tax cuts.''

Mr. Speaker, I am going to also urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 738, the Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act, which would ensure that all eligible voters in America have the option to vote by mail.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump has issued an executive order to undermine the credibility of our elections and to make it harder or even impossible for millions of Americans to vote by mail. We learned today from a whistleblower that Trump officials are defying court orders and pushing ahead with these unconstitutional plans.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you, President Trump personally loves voting by mail. He voted by mail in Florida as recently as 2 weeks ago. To everyone listening, Trump wants to vote by mail, but he doesn't want you to be able to do so.

Voting by mail has been proven to increase turnout and reduce barriers to voting, such as bad weather, illness, disability, and long lines. We should expand mail-in voting to make it easier for Americans to participate in our democracy, which is what this bill would do.

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.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from the Associated Press titled: ``US consumer confidence falls to lowest level in 7 months with gas stuck above $4''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from NBC titled: ``How Trump's economic policies are widening America's wealth gap''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from CNN titled: ``Trump's tariffs are bigger than his tax cuts for most Americans''.

I say to the gentlewoman that I appreciate her reciting the RNC's talking points, and I would encourage her to keep on reciting them and bring that message home, to go home and tell the American people that things are great, that things are unbelievably wonderful, and that you should thank the Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump for raising the prices on everything.

Go home and sell that message to the American people. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we won't have to do anything.

The bottom line is that things aren't good for people. As I said, there is a Trump tax of $4,000 on average Americans. That is what they have to pay in additional costs for everything, from rent to healthcare to groceries to you name it. That is the Trump tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentlewoman how many more speakers she has on her side? We haven't seen any other than her. I am just curious.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Let me, first of all, respond to something the gentlewoman from North Carolina said about Republicans trying to protect our children. I would just ask, where the hell are the Epstein files? We have forced resolutions on this floor to be passed, to demand a release of these files.

Congressman Massie came to the floor. Again, he has another resolution. Still, we have no compliance with the law. We know that this administration is up to their eyeballs in the Epstein files. When is that going to happen? When is that going to be released? I mean, talk about protecting children.

Mr. Speaker, you know when Republicans send us home this week, what exactly will be cheaper? Will groceries cost less? Will rent go down? Will anybody's electric bill shrink? Will health insurance premiums come down? The answer is no. Not one damn thing on the agenda this week will address the affordability crisis. Nothing.

Congress will have condemned socialism again. Mission accomplished, I guess. You know that tells you everything about the priorities of this Republican majority. Whenever the conversation gets uncomfortable, they change the subject.

Why are groceries so expensive? Socialism. Why are healthcare costs so expensive? They showed socialism. Why did Trump start another new war in the Middle East? You must be a Socialist for asking the question. When are you going to release the Epstein files? When is that going to happen? Socialism, socialism, socialism. It is literally insane. It is Trump derangement syndrome.

Meanwhile, the President's big win this week is pretending to rename Lake Ontario after getting into a trade war with our closest ally and neighbor. This is nuts. This Chamber ceases to be a serious body when we don't call this stuff out and when we don't actually bring bills to the floor that address the real needs of the American people.

The American people are not stupid. They know who is focused on listening to their problems and who is focused on playing political games.

We should be working to lower costs, period. Contrary to what Trump says, affordability is not a made-up word, and it does have a definition. People cannot afford to pay everyday expenses. They can't afford their groceries. They can't afford their rent. They can't afford to fill their gas tank up. They want lower healthcare costs. They want lower housing costs. They want lower energy costs. They want lower grocery bills.

They want an end to the corporate giveaways and tax loopholes that let big companies jack up prices and gouge consumers. You know, they want an end to giving these corporations the ability to cheat on their taxes and to avoid accountability.

That is what people want us to do, not fight absurd culture wars and debate far-right fringe garbage. If our Republican colleagues want to have another debate about socialism, fine, let's have it. Waste more time passing more nonbinding resolutions. At the end of the day, people are going to vote based on their bank accounts, pocketbooks, grocery bills, and gas prices.

People look at life through their kitchen window. They are tired of all of this bs that is being talked about in this Chamber. They are sick of a Congress that debates trivial issues passionately but important ones not at all. They want to know when we are going to care about them. They are sick and tired of a Congress that gives tax breaks to entities, that gives big donations to political parties and political candidates. They want to know when they come first.

My friends, you have failed miserably to deliver on your promise to make life more affordable for people. People are counting on us. They want us to do better. You have a chance. We will work in a bipartisan way to try to deal with some of these high costs the people are faced with right now.

No, we come back after a recess, and this is what we are dealing with. This is garbage. This is a waste of time. This is an insult to this Chamber. It is an insult to the American people. They will remember in November.

Vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1499 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, yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and produced the rule, House Resolution 1499, providing for the House's consideration of four measures: H.R. 1501, H.R. 9436, H. Res. 1490, and

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

Mr. Speaker, in the 119th Congress, the House has been the most aggressive, successful, and productive since the 80th Congress in 1949. Total measures passed by the House are 899. Tax relief was $82 billion across all filers this tax season with 97 percent of all tax filers receiving a tax cut last year, and the 3 percent who didn't were the highest earners in the country. Regulations lifted by Congress are 23.

When you place these three points within historical context, they reveal that this Congress is the most successful and productive since 1949.

Now, obviously, the House cannot control the actions of the Senate. The statistics demonstrated by the House of Representatives this Congress are truly historic. I would put them up against the abysmal record of sleepy Joe Biden and his enablers every day.

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

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

I will continue to talk about the accomplishments of the 119th Congress. House Republicans, so far in the 119th Congress, have passed the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which delivered the largest middle- and working-class tax cuts in U.S. history. That cannot be refuted, Mr. Speaker. It cannot. Anyone who tries to do that is themselves living in an alternate universe.

We expanded 529 education accounts. We saved American farms by allowing farmers to spread tax payments on sales over 4 years if the land continues to be used for agriculture purposes. We doubled the small business expensing limit. We permanently extended the small business deduction. We delivered a $6,000 bonus deduction to seniors on Social Security. We eliminated the tax on auto loan interest for American-made cars. We permanently increased the child tax credit to $2,200. We eliminated the tax on overtime. We eliminated the tax on tips. We created Trump accounts to help children begin saving for their future. We permanently allowed businesses to immediately deduct domestic R&D expenses. We permanently doubled the death tax exemption. We permanently increased the standard deduction. We ended taxation of suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. We repealed the green corporate welfare subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have enough time in the time allotted for this rule debate today to list all of the wonderful things that this House of Representatives and this Congress have done to improve the lives of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, in order not to allow Americans to be misled by statements being made here on the floor, I am going to continue to list items among the dozens that were in H.R. 1 that could have been stand-alone bills but for efficiency's sake were included in H.R. 1.

We permanently secured our Nation's borders, funded the construction of the border wall, and provided funding for additional Customs officers and Border Patrol agents. However, in addition to that, we passed the Laken Riley Act as a stand-alone to require detention of illegal aliens who commit theft.

The Working Families Tax Cuts included provisions that make illegal immigrants who are convicted of or who have admitted to sex offenses or domestic violence inadmissible and deportable. The Working Families Tax Cuts creates a new criminal offense for operating a vehicle within 100 miles of the southern border while fleeing Border Patrol agents. The Jeremy and Angel Seay and Sergeant Brandon Mendoza Protect Our Communities from DUIs Act makes driving while intoxicated or impaired grounds for deporting an illegal alien.

The Kayla Hamilton Act requires background checks for criminal history or gang affiliation before unaccompanied alien children are placed in American communities.

Not a single illegal alien has been released into the U.S. in 16 months. Four hundred thousand illegals who were charged with and convicted of a crime have been deported. Emergency rooms have reported significant reductions in illegal immigrant visits, freeing up critical resources to better serve American citizens in need of urgent medical care.

Fentanyl trafficking at the southern border has been reduced by 56 percent in FY 2025. The HALT Fentanyl Act permanently schedules fentanyl and fentanyl analogues as schedule I drugs.

More than 146 migrant children have been rescued from sex trafficking and child labor. We hear about this every week on the news.

Another act, the SUPPORT Act, reauthorizes support and treatment programs for opioid use disorders and other substance abuse disorders.

We lowered costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our country.

We protected children by passing legislation that would end gender- affirming care--gender-affirming care, what a distortion of the American language--for minors, and we banned biological males from girls' and women's sports.

Mr. Speaker, if we have done nothing else, that is a huge accomplishment, but we have done so many other things.

We passed the KIDS Act that protects children online by holding Big Tech accountable and requiring stronger safeguards to protect kids from predators, exploitation, and harmful online contents. Again, we could go on and on, and I will, to correct the record of what we have done in this Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying we are wasting our time here when we talk about all that we have accomplished in this session of Congress. They especially don't like it when we talk about socialism.

I encourage the American people to go online and look at this manifesto from the Democratic Socialists of America. It is out there for all the world to see. This is an expanded version from the first one that I saw that looked like it was written by a seventh grader. This one really fills out what these people want to do, and it is why we are bringing one measure today, under this rule, to condemn what these people want to do.

It is abhorrent to all Americans. Its goals are repugnant to the principles that form the foundation for American constitutional liberties that benefit all Americans. There is simply no way to reconcile what the DSA envisions for America with the Constitution that protects us all.

For example, the DSA's stated long-term goals, to completely replace the Presidency and the Supreme Court, threaten the foundation of separation of powers and the stability of American democracy.

The DSA seeks to centralize State power. We all know that expanding State control crowds out civil society and individual choice. Even under a ``Democratic'' banner, hyper-centralized authority diminishes opportunities for dissenting views and personal freedoms.

The DSA seeks to abolish national boundaries. Think about that. The chaos we experienced when President Biden allowed millions of illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. will seem like child's play in comparison. We know of the security risks caused by President Biden's open borders. Murderers, child rapists, and other criminals were granted carte blanche to terrorize American communities.

Think about the implications of a permanent absence of borders. We know the financial costs caused by President Biden's open borders. In one sanctuary State alone, emergency housing for illegal immigrants surpassed $1 billion in FY 2025. Providing such services on a permanent, ongoing basis would bankrupt every State.

Let me just quote from a few pages of this manifesto. They want to have ``publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure. Phase out the use of fossil fuels. Reclaim and repair our Earth's resources for all.''

This sounds like free buses in New York that have been promised.

``Feminism for All: Socialist feminism fights for queer liberation and the freedoms for all working-class women.''

``Healthcare for All: Guarantee universal healthcare at no cost to individuals, including complete access to reproductive and gender- affirming care.''

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That means abortions at any point in the child's life.

They want housing for all: ``Build new, publicly owned social housing, strictly regulate investment properties, establish universal rent control, and guarantee right to counsel for all tenants.''

Mr. Speaker, this is dangerous. There are people who are going to be in this Congress in the next session who support these programs.

Again, I encourage the American people to look at this manifesto from the DSA. They are called Democratic Socialists of America. That is what they are called. That is what is asked for here, Mr. Speaker.

As I said at the outset of the debate, we have a solid slate of bills contained under this rule. They are substantive, impactful, and address pertinent issues occurring across the Nation like this manifesto.

We can and should pass this rule and each of the underlying bills to continue our work in service to the Nation and to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we find ourselves here, again, purportedly to address anti-Semitism in American higher education. While we should be able to agree that there is no place in higher education for anti- Semitism, the fact is my colleagues on the other side have been curiously quiet, or selectively quiet, about addressing anti-Semitism when it actually does occur.

Recall when President Trump declared that there were fine people on both sides when a bunch of White supremacists and their Unite the Right rally marched on the University of Virginia's campus chanting: ``Jews will not replace us.''

My colleagues on the other side were also silent as numerous reports regarding chapters of the College Republicans openly promoted their hated of Jewish people among other groups.

All the while this has been going on, my colleagues have not told the President to stop firing lawyers at the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education, the agency responsible for investigating claims of anti-Semitism in education.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are certainly mum about how this administration is dismissing Title VI disparate impact analysis, the very tool necessary to address practices and policies that may appear facially neutral but, in fact, discriminate against protected classes under the law.

I have not heard them comment on the whistleblower allegations, and many investigations into anti-Semitism on college campuses, led by the Department of Justice's Anti-Semitism Task Force, were based not on fact patterns or legal analysis but political priorities.

With that said, we have the bill before us, the so-called Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, which would amend the Higher Education Act by imposing new conditions on colleges and universities that receive higher education funding. Under the bill, institutions receiving Title IV Federal student aid would be legally required to certify that they are not engaged in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel.

I will begin with an important distinction: there is a difference between actions, or views of students, or even recognized student organizations and the official policy of the colleges and universities they attend.

Students have the right to express their political views, but that does not mean that their university has adopted those views, such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, movement. We have yet to see a single college or university in the United States adopt the BDS movement or institutional boycott policies contemplated in the bill.

Simply put, the bill does not address any ongoing or existing higher education policy boycotting Israel. Nonetheless, this would create new Federal requirements intended to prevent institutions from adopting such policies in the future.

Moreover, as we examine the bill, Members should be careful to consider how these Federal requirements would operate in practice, the potential of negative effect on institutions receiving Federal funds, and whether the bill is misusing the power that we have from the Constitution's Spending Clause to illegally sanction First Amendment- protected speech, particularly those of students.

As written, the bill presents serious First Amendment problems and improperly limits academic freedom.

I had hoped these problems could have been resolved before we got to the floor, but they weren't, so I will be opposing the bill. For these reasons, I ask Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from J Street, which says in part: ``This means infringing on constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their opposition to activities that further annexation sets a dangerous precedent.''

[From J Street, Aug. 31, 2026]

J Street Statement Opposing H.R. 4795

Washington, DC--J Street opposes the Protect Economic and

Academic Freedom Act of 2025 (H.R. 4795), which would

condition federal funding on a university's choices regarding

investments, procurement, partnerships, and other

institutional activities in Israel and the West Bank.

While we oppose the Global BDS Movement and strongly

support academic engagement between American and Israeli

institutions, we believe this legislation takes the wrong

approach to these issues.

Specifically, the legislation would penalize any

institution that chooses to engage in a nonexpressive

commercial boycott against Israel and ``an entity licensed or

regulated by, or organized under the laws of,'' Israel, which

would include Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

This means infringing on constitutionally protected free

speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and

thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain

boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli

settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the

State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the

Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their

opposition to activities that further annexation sets a

dangerous precedent.

Furthermore, this bill does not keep American Jewish

students on campus safe, nor does it address the lived

experience of antisemitism that American Jewish students

encounter. Instead, by changing US code to to exceptionalize

the treatment of Israel at American universities, this bill

runs the risk of inflaming antisemitism.

J Street believes the most effective way to counter

antisemitism on college campuses is through open debate,

education, and renewed efforts to achieve a peaceful

resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--not through

punitive legislation aimed to curb the freedom to boycott.

We urge Members of Congress to vote against this bill and

instead cosponsor the Antisemitism Response and Prevention

Act (H.R. 6806). This bill would implement a whole-of-

government approach to fighting antisemitism by funding the

Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education and

mandating the designation of a Title VI coordinator on every

college campus in order to provide students with additional

resources in hopes of preventing antisemitism and other hate

on campus.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a statement from the American Federation of Teachers which says in part: ``The AFT has long fought for academic freedom, the safety and dignity of all students and educators, and policies that keep higher education accessible. H.R. 4795 undermines those goals rather than advancing them.''

Mr. Speaker, I will close by returning to the central point: that we must distinguish between student or faculty expression in university policy.

A student organization or individual faculty member supporting BDS is not the same thing as the university administration adopting BDS as policy. A faculty member expressing a political opinion is not the same thing as the institution imposing a boycott.

Importantly, we have yet to see a single American college or university adopting BDS in the way the bill suggests. Furthermore, we know the bill is intended to target the BDS movement. Yet it is not clear whether a school that even joined the BDS movement would be covered by the text of the bill.

The bill implicates ``nonexpressive boycotts'' as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro) just pointed out. If it is expressive, it is protected by the First Amendment. BDS by its very nature is designed to express disapproval of the actions of the State of Israel. If a college or university came out and publicly said it was joining BDS, most people would agree that that announcement and any activity that flowed from it would clearly be expressive, and therefore, out of the scope of the bill.

As an expressive activity, the statement would be protected under the First Amendment, and therefore, the First Amendment would protect the funding from being removed. But, again, no college or university has embraced the BDS movement anyway.

We should combat anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, but we should not do so by punishing protected speech or conflating students' views with university policies.

For those reasons I urge a ``no'' vote, 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 1499, I call up the bill (H.R. 4795) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that Act, to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that Act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel, 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4795.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4795, Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act.

In recent years, we have seen campaigns to boycott Israel spread across American campuses. These campaigns have pressured colleges and universities to cut financial, commercial, and academic ties with Israeli companies and institutions. That can mean restricting study abroad opportunities, research partnerships, academic exchanges, conferences, and other programs involving Israel.

We cannot ignore the role these campaigns have played in fueling the alarming rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses. It is no coincidence that some of the largest supporters of these campaigns have applauded the October 7 attacks and continue to use anti-Semitic language.

The Boycott, Divest and Sanctions, or BDS, movement singles out and demonizes Israel. It rejects the truth that Israel is a close friend and strategic

partner of the United States. Our universities should not use taxpayer- funded Federal programs to discriminate against Israeli students, faculty, institutions, or businesses simply because they are Israeli.

H.R. 4795 would prohibit participating institutions from engaging in boycotts of Israel that are not based on legitimate business reasons. It would also require colleges and universities to treat academic opportunities involving Israel the same as those involving other countries, ensuring Israeli students and faculty have the same access to academic programs and opportunities as their peers from around the world.

This is about fairness. It is about justice. It is about protecting academic freedom. It is about accountability for Federal taxpayer dollars.

The Federal Government provides significant support to higher education. American taxpayers should not be funding institutions that utilize Federal programs while simultaneously pursuing discriminatory boycotts or unequal academic treatment based solely on ties to Israel.

H.R. 4795 passed the committee with bipartisan support, 24-9. That vote reflects what should be an important bipartisan consensus. Our institutions of higher education should be welcoming places for scholarship and exchange, not hotbeds of anti-Semitism and discrimination.

I hope the floor vote reflects this principle.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4795 and send a clear message that academic and economic freedom must be protected on our campuses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the sponsor of this good legislation and necessary legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the vice chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about a simple principle: Our colleges and universities should not discriminate against Israel, Israeli institutions, or Israeli students; and Federal taxpayer dollars should never support institutions that engage in such discrimination.

Academic freedom means students and faculty should be free to study, conduct research, collaborate, and exchange ideas without boycotts closing doors based on nationality.

H.R. 4795 protects that principle. It ensures that colleges participating in Federal higher education programs do not engage in certain unjustified commercial boycotts of Israel and that academic opportunities involving Israel are treated fairly and equally.

This is particularly important at a time when Jewish students and faculty are facing an alarming rise in anti-Semitism on American campuses.

Our universities should be places where every student can learn without fear of discrimination or hostility and where academic partnerships are evaluated on their merits, not on campaigns that target one country.

The United States has a strong and enduring partnership with Israel. Our colleges and universities should not be undermining that relationship while asking American taxpayers to support their institution.

H.R. 4795 passed our committee with bipartisan support. Now it is time for the full House to stand for academic freedom, equal treatment, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

I thank Representative Virginia Foxx for her leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4795.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 4795, bipartisan legislation to combat anti-Semitic, discriminatory commercial and academic boycotts of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walberg for yielding me time, and I thank him for advancing this critical bill out of committee.

I also thank Ranking Member Scott for his vote in committee to advance the bill on a bipartisan basis.

In addition, I also thank the coauthor of this bill, Representative Gottheimer of New Jersey, for his tireless work on this bipartisan achievement.

I thank the groups that we worked with and those that support this legislation, the American Jewish Committee and the Combat Antisemitism Movement, for their steadfast support.

Mr. Speaker, for decades now, the State of Israel, Israelis, and the people of Jewish faith have been internationally subjected to deplorable boycotts of their identity, their livelihoods, and their vitality.

As others have stated, these boycotts are anti-Semitic in their design and discriminatory in their effect, and after October 7, universities have become the epicenters of these campaigns.

Let me just quote the cofounder of the modern BDS movement, Omar Barghouti, emphasis mine: ``The ending of Israeli control in the territories is but the first stage of the road to fulfilling the vision of the dismantling of Israel.''

You heard that correctly, ``the dismantling of Israel,'' as stated by the founder of this deplorable movement.

I want every Member of the House that is about to vote on this measure to reckon with this fact: the very founder of the BDS movement wants to dismantle the Jewish state. That is why the American Jewish Committee has characterized BDS leadership as seeking nothing less than the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.

Every Member here should let that sink in and every Member should understand that this bill represents the House's opportunity to stop this anti-Semitic, discriminatory, and inhuman campaign from being fueled by American taxpayers and stop it in its tracks.

Commercial and academic boycotts like the ones we see, when fueled by taxpayer funds, represent concrete discrimination against the people's national origin. They are discriminating against people of the Jewish faith. They result in discrimination against and marginalizing of Israeli students. No matter how you slice it, these anti-Semitic boycotts should have no place in higher education and deserve zero intersection with the Federal Government.

Now, let me speak to the chief argument from opponents of this bill: that these boycotts are illusionary, nonevents, or they haven't yet been actualized by administrators, so there is no

reason to address possible taxpayer funding.

These boycotts are manifest. They are coordinated. They are real. They marginalize Jewish students. They harm Israel, Israelis, and Jewish students economically.

Case in point, the Evergreen State College in Washington, at the administrative level, reached an agreement to address divestment from companies that profit from the ``occupation of Palestinian territories.'' You can read this commitment to boycott and divest from Israel online as we speak.

The Committee on Education and Workforce's investigation last Congress revealed that faculty members and Northwestern's provost-- administrators, mind you--were openly willing to appease encampment organizers in their efforts to demand that the university boycott Sabra hummus. These demands were only rejected after Congress threw its full weight and investigative power against such appeasements.

The lack of successful commercial boycotts isn't due to a lack of trying. During the 2023-2024 academic year, at least 86 BDS resolutions were considered across graduate, undergraduate, and professional student organizations and faculty unions.

Academic boycotts have a record of taxpayer support. Keep in mind, they can be stealthily executed at the programmatic level and can be accomplished without the expressed support from university administrators.

One leading professor at Georgetown's Title VI supported National Resource Center has actively pursued a full academic boycott of Israel.

In 2013, the American Studies Association, the largest academic--

Mr. Speaker, in 2013, the American Studies Association, the largest academic group in the United States, adopted a policy endorsing an academic boycott of Israel. In 2014, six taxpayer-supported NRC directors signed a letter endorsing an academic boycott of Israel. These academic boycotts contravene the purposes of the title VI funding they received.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but now is not the time for talk. The facts are evident. Now is the time for action. This Congress needs to codify this preventive measure to protect students and taxpayers from this disgusting discrimination.

Again, I thank Chairman Walberg and Representative Gottheimer for their work on this bipartisan legislation. I urge the Chamber to draw a line in the sand against these harmful campaigns against the State of Israel, Israelis, and our Jewish students at home.