H.Res. 242

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1048, the DETERRENT Act.

Let's acknowledge, first of all, the elephant in the room. Just this month, the Secretary of Education fired one-half of the Department's staff, and last week, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the entire Department. This administration is actively working to eliminate an agency that has long been the cornerstone of ensuring that every child in America has access to a quality education.

Today, we are discussing a bill that would add even more responsibility to the very Department that they are trying to destroy. It is almost as if they are trying to dismantle the agency, but at the same time, they recognize how critical its role is and are piling on additional duties. This is not only nonsensical but also reckless. Republicans can't argue that the Department of Education is unnecessary and then hand it more work, expecting it to function without the staff, resources, or the leadership that it needs.

This Congress has a responsibility to address the many pressing issues that students face such as closing the achievement gaps, improving college

affordability, and ending gun violence in schools. Instead, we find ourselves considering bills that target vulnerable groups, and now this bill, which risks isolating America from global partnerships in research and education.

Instead of requiring institutions to report foreign gifts or contracts large enough to exert any influence, the bill before us would require institutions to report gifts of any value from people who are not U.S. citizens if they are from a list of countries of concern, a list that is difficult to find and will be very difficult to keep track of because it is subject to change.

The Department of Education has already lost one-half of its staff, and if this bill passes, it will have to process an exponentially larger number of reports than it has to process already.

Now, how can we place these new responsibilities on an agency that is being hollowed out, and how can we expect it to manage these complex issues when the institution is being dismantled?

H.R. 1048 will also impose burdensome and unnecessary penalties on institutions for working with international scholars and organizations. Since faculty really don't know their colleagues' citizenship status, it is reasonable to believe that discrimination will follow and institutions will be disincentivized from hiring talented international faculty.

Mr. Chair, present law already requires reporting of any gift large enough to exert any influence over a university. This bill requires the reporting of gifts of any value, whether it be a cup of coffee or a doughnut, from people who are from so-called countries of concern and requires the Department of Education to process all of those reports, the same Department of Education that just lost one-half of its staff.

If the problem is millions of dollars in unreported gifts, then requiring the reporting of free doughnuts cannot be the answer.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

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

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the American Council on Education on behalf of the American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, which says in part: `` . . . as currently proposed, the DETERRENT Act would significantly impede critical research activities; duplicate existing interagency efforts; and put in place a problematic expansion of data collection by the Department of Education without ensuring that actual national security or foreign malign influence threats, including those which espouse support for actions that run counter to American foreign policy, are addressed.''

American Council on Education,

Washington, DC, March 25, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On

behalf of the American Council on Education and the

undersigned higher education associations, I write in

opposition to H.R. 1048, the ``Defending Education

Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious

Transactions (DETERRENT)'' Act. We appreciate and take very

seriously the concerns raised around research security and

foreign malign influence, at institutions of higher

education. However, as currently proposed, the DETERRENT Act

would significantly impede critical research activities;

duplicate existing interagency efforts; and put in place a

problematic expansion of data collection by the Department of

Education without ensuring that actual national security or

foreign malign influence threats, including those which

espouse support for actions that run counter to American

foreign policy, are addressed.

Over the past several years, we have worked with our

members to encourage full compliance with reporting

obligations in Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, as

well as working with the national security agencies, research

agencies, and the Department of Education to clarify and

improve foreign gift and contract reporting. As a result,

since issues with foreign gift reporting were raised by

Congress and policymakers in 2018, there has been a

substantial increase in Section 117 reporting. Our

associations and member institutions have continued to work

with the federal research agencies to implement a range of

new reporting requirements under NSPM-33, the CHIPS and

Science Act, and numerous National Defense Authorization Act

provisions. Since 2023, when the DETERRENT Act was first

marked up, federal research agencies have now fully

implemented common disclosure forms that require more details

on foreign affiliations, relationships, and financial

interests; started implementing requirements for institutions

to maintain research security programs; and created new

processes for assessing and mitigating risks prior to award.

Proponents of this bill have also asserted that it may be

helpful in deterring antisemitic activity linked to foreign

actors on colleges campuses. To be very clear, our

institutions take seriously the rise of antisemitic activity

across the country, and there is no question that more needs

to be done to address it. We continue to work with major

Jewish organizations and institutions with a shared

conviction that Jewish students, staff, and faculty deserve

to study and work without threat of harassment or

discrimination. However, the DETERRENT Act is unlikely to

solve the societal problem of antisemitism. Instead, it will

result in more duplicative reporting, confusion on campuses

and among faculty, and an increase in the overall costs of

compliance.

We appreciate that the DETERRENT Act would make Section 117

an annual report, rather than the current biannual

requirements, which would better align it with the National

Science Foundation (NSF) foreign gift reporting requirement.

We also appreciate that the legislation exempts tuition

payments and certain outgoing contracts from institutions

used to purchase goods from foreign companies. Exempting

tuition is especially important since the DETERRENT Act would

lower the reporting threshold from $250,000 to $50,000 for

some gifts and contracts and to $0 for certain countries of

concern and foreign entities of concern.

Additionally, we appreciate the alignment of definitions

(i.e. ``countries of concern'' and ``foreign entities of

concern'') with definitions already in use at Department of

Defense and NSF to help guide our institutions efforts to

address research security concerns. We also support the

language clarifying record retention and translations of gift

and contract agreements, which provides important guidance to

our institutions regarding retention of records.

However, we are concerned that the version of the bill

being considered on the floor includes significant changes

whose impact on institutions we have not had time to fully

understand. This includes the addition of ``intellectual

property'' to the definition of foreign gifts and contracts,

as well as adding organizations such as the United Nations,

to the definition of foreign sources. We remain concerned

regarding the expansion of Section 117 into areas where it is

unclear how additional and often burdensome reporting will

help to address national security concerns, beyond the new

requirements created and implemented over the past few years.

Additionally, the proposed expansion and creation of new

reports under Section 117 could increase national security

concerns by exposing information to malign foreign efforts.

The proposed bill includes several sections with

detrimental impacts, and we urge you to strike these

sections:

The new Section ll7a, ``Prohibition on Contracts with

Certain Foreign Entities and Countries,'' would require

institutions to receive a waiver from the Department of

Education before beginning or continuing a contract with a

country of concern or a foreign entity of concern. This

provision is particularly concerning because the definition

of a ``contract'' is incredibly broad and therefore will

likely capture not only all research agreements, but also

student exchange programs and other joint cultural and

education programs. This is especially concerning, given

the fact that the U.S. Department of State has paused

federal efforts around exchange programs, such as

Fulbright and Gilman Scholars, at a time when the United

States needs more students to study the Chinese language.

In addition, the Department of Education does not currently

have the expertise to carry out the review of contracts, many

of which will likely focus on scientific research not under

the jurisdiction of the Department. And given the recent

reduction in force actions, which greatly reduced staff

including at Federal Student Aid, it is unclear how this

additional work would be carried out in a timely manner by

the Department. Our institutions abide by the regulations and

requirements maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce,

the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Department

of State regarding U.S. partnerships, export controls, and

purchases from foreign entities. There are no indications

that expanded Department of Education reviews are necessary;

no other industry or government entity, including states,

localities, and other nonprofit organizations, must undertake

this type of review of an agreement before they can enter

into a contract with a country or foreign entity.

Section ll7b, ``Institutional Policy Regarding Foreign

Gifts and Contracts to Faculty and Staff,'' would require

institutions of higher education that receive more than $50

million in federal research and development funding or any

Title VI funding to develop a policy to compel research

faculty and staff, including those at ``affiliated entities''

to report any foreign gifts valued over $480 and contracts

over $5,000, as well as creating and maintaining a

searchable, public database with that information. This

requirement is unnecessary given other existing federal

statutory mandates that require researchers to disclose all

sources of foreign, domestic, current, and pending support

for their research to federal research agencies as they apply

for research awards and contracts.

While the bill attempts to make the names of the reporting

faculty and staff private, this provision raises both privacy

and security concerns regarding personal financial

transactions of relatively small amounts, including for

example an inheritance from a foreign family member. This

could also provide our foreign adversaries with a roadmap for

targeting our top-notch U.S. researchers. Section 117b will

likely result in the collection of an ocean of data, much of

it trivial and inconsequential, and do little to address the

fundamental concerns regarding research security and foreign

influence.

Section 117c, ``Investment Disclosure Report,'' would

create new reports for certain institutions of higher

education (private institutions with endowments over $6

billion or with ``investments of concern'' above $250

million). These institutions would need to report those

investments with a country of concern or a foreign entity of

concern on an annual basis to the Department of Education,

which would then be made public on a searchable database.

Similar to our concerns with l17a and 117b, it is unclear

what national security or foreign malign influence threat

this provision is trying to address. Our institutions are in

compliance with Treasury rules regulating our investments,

regarding outbound investments in certain sensitive

technologies in countries of concern. It is unclear how this

will address additional issues of national security, beyond

existing federal requirements. It is also unclear why

endowments at certain private institutions of higher

education would be specifically called out as a national

security concern when investments made by other entities that

are not institutions of higher education, such as other

nonprofits, government grantees and private government

contractors are not made public.

Section 117d, ``Enforcement; Single Point of Contract;

Institutional Requirements,'' establishes new fines regarding

compliance with Section 117 reporting and the new subsections

of Section 117. The legislation would put into statute the

tie between Section 117 and an institution's program

participation agreement. By tying the new proposed fines to

Title IV, this would punish students for compliance issues at

institutions, specifically compliance with foreign gift

reporting, which is not likely impacting individual students.

In addition to these recommendations, we strongly encourage

the final bill to also include language that requires the

Department of Education to carry out negotiated rulemaking on

Section 117, in order to ensure that the Department engages

fully with the stakeholder community and clarifies important

questions around definitions to ensure the reports are

completed in the most useful way possible for policymakers,

interested public parties, and the national security

agencies.

We appreciate the efforts in the DETERRENT Act to clarify

Section 117 and codify compliance rules the Department of

Education has previously used sub-regulatory guidance to

explain. However, we urge you to consider the potentially

detrimental impacts of Sections 117a, 117b, 117c, and 117d,

and strike those sections. This significant expansion of

Department authority and responsibility is especially

problematic given the recent reduction in force implemented

at the Department of Education, as well as the

Administration's efforts to dismantle the Department. We look

forward to working with you on this important legislation as

it moves forward in Congress. However, if the bill includes

those problematic provisions as it moves forward, we will

continue to oppose the legislation as drafted. There are

better approaches to address the concerns of policymakers and

we welcome the opportunity to work with lawmakers on the

right solutions.

Sincerely,

Ted Mitchell,

President.

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

Mr. Chair, we received a letter from the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities which says in part that Federal agencies since 2023 ``have significantly expanded research security efforts'' and outlines those efforts and then says: ``Rather than advance transparency and meaningfully contribute to the plethora of actions taken by Congress and the Trump and Biden administrations over the last 10 years, the DETERRENT Act will impede important international collaborations and be duplicative of other Federal research agencies' efforts to appropriately strengthen research security and foreign partnership reporting requirements.''

Then they outline some specific concerns by saying: ``The bill would inappropriately create a new and highly unusual role for the U.S. Department of Education in making determinations about the suitability of international research, education, and cultural partnerships, despite its lack of expertise in scientific research.''

It also says: ``The bill would require institutions to create new public databases for the disclosure of international gifts to faculty and staff members. This reporting would include the disclosure of non- work-related gifts from any country that grantees receive

from family, for example, even when there are no connections to their work. Records of such gifts would be required to be in a searchable database maintained by institutions, and for public universities, such reporting would potentially be subject to open records requests that could allow foreign actors to identify leading researchers to target for influence operations.''

Finally, it says: ``The bill would create duplicative disclosure requirements for foreign gift disclosures as Federal research grant applicants already must disclose all sources of support--whether foreign or domestic--for the research activities.''

Mr. Chair, I include this letter in the Record.

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,

Washington, DC, March 24, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

House of Representatives,

Washington DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House of Representatives,

Washington DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: As

president of the Association of Public and Land-grant

Universities (APLU), a membership association of more than

230 public research universities and systems in all 50

states, I write to share concerns on the DETERRENT Act, H.R.

1048. Regrettably, APLU must oppose this bill as currently

constructed as it would ultimately impede innovation that is

essential to U.S. competitiveness and add substantial costs

to institutions that drive growth in administrative

compliance and bureaucracy rather than support for students

and science. APLU strongly believes a better approach to

address policymaker concerns is possible and welcomes the

opportunity to work together to achieve common goals.

In recent years, the public university community has worked

with Congress and the intelligence and law enforcement

community to bolster research security to prevent undue

foreign influence. Congress has already passed numerous bills

that have significantly altered U.S. universities treatment

of international partnerships. In fact, since the DETERRENT

Act was last considered in 2023, federal agencies have

significantly expanded research security efforts including:

the Department of Defense issued a policy for risk-based

security reviews of fundamental research to prevent

partnerships with entities and countries of concern;

the Department of Energy established a new framework for

risk-based decisions and ensure transparency;

the National Science Foundation (NSF) launched a new

reporting system for institutions receiving funding,

requiring grantees to report all foreign gifts and contracts

over $50,000;

NSF launched a risk mitigation process to prevent potential

national security risks;

NSF launched a new center to share information and reports

on research security;

the National Institutes of Health created a decision matrix

to assess the potential for foreign interference; and

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

launched uniform guidelines about foreign talent programs.

While expansive, this is not even a comprehensive list of

new federal actions advancing research security just since

2023.

Rather than enhance transparency and meaningfully

contribute to the plethora of actions taken by Congress and

the Trump and Biden administrations over the last ten years,

the DETERRENT Act will impede important international

collaborations and be duplicative of other federal research

agencies' efforts to appropriately strengthen research

security and foreign partnership reporting requirements.

Below, I outline public research universities' most

significant concerns with the legislation as currently

formulated:

The bill would inappropriately create a new and highly

unusual role for the U.S. Department of Education in making

determinations about the suitability of international

research, education, and cultural partnerships, despite its

lack of expertise in scientific research. The Department is

ill-equipped to take on such work as it is well outside its

responsibility and expertise. Additionally, U.S.

universities' partnerships with foreign entities are already

regulated by the Departments of Commerce, State, and

Treasury, among others.

The bill would require institutions to create new public

databases for the disclosure of international gifts to

faculty and staff members. This reporting would include the

disclosure of non-work related gifts from any country that

grantees receive from family, for example, even when there

are no connections to their work. Records of such gifts would

be required to be in a searchable database maintained by

institutions, and for public universities, such reporting

would potentially be subject to open records requests that

could allow foreign actors to identify leading researchers to

target for influence operations.

The bill would create duplicative disclosure requirements

for foreign gift disclosures as federal research grant

applicants already must disclose all sources of support--

whether foreign or domestic--for the research activities.

Additionally, NSF established a new reporting portal in 2024

for all gifts or contracts from countries of concern. NSF's

newly-created reporting portal is more user friendly and does

not have the technical challenges of the Department of

Education's currently outdated reporting system. An

alternative approach to the DETERRENT Act could build upon

rather than duplicate the NSF system.

The bill contains several provisions that APLU supports

including unifying definitions across federal agencies,

codifying compliance rules the Department of Education has

previously used sub-regulatory guidance to explain, providing

clarity on the treatment of tuition payments, and requiring

the Department of Education to maintain a single point of

contact to respond to inquiries and provide technical

assistance to institutions. However, concerns about the role

and capacities of the Department of Education, which were

already significant, are further exacerbated given recent

administration announcements on the future mission and

staffing of the Department.

Public research universities remain committed to working

with policymakers to appropriately enhance research security.

APLU strongly believes this can be done without unnecessarily

burdening institutions with additional regulations that are

overly broad, misdirected, and would further bureaucracy both

of schools and the federal government. We welcome the

opportunity to work with lawmakers on better balanced

solutions.

Sincerely,

Mark Becker,

President, APLU.

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

Mr. Chairman, we received a letter from the Association of American Universities, which says, in part: `` . . . as currently proposed, sections 117a, 117b, 117c, and 117d in the bill are unhelpful to advancing the national and research security interests of the United States. Indeed, the new faculty and staff gift reporting requirement for any and all countries is excessive, will prove counterproductive, and divert important university resources away from more valuable and focused efforts to address legitimate research security risks. Additionally, the bill's contract waiver requirement will prevent U.S. researchers and students from participating in important international scientific collaborations and exchange programs, ultimately harming-- not helping--the U.S. maintain its global leadership position in critical areas of scientific research.''

Mr. Chair, I include this letter in the Record, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Association of

American Universities,

Washington, DC, March 24, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: I write

on behalf of the Association of American Universities (AAU)

representing 69 leading U.S. research universities to urge

your opposition to H.R. 1048, the ``Defending Education

Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious

Transactions (DETERRENT)'' Act.

AAU supports some aspects of the bill to improve foreign

gift reporting by institutions of higher education as

required by Section 117 of the Higher Education Act,

including establishing a single (point of contact at the

department, exempting reporting for certain tuition payments,

aligning some definitions, and establishing annual reporting.

However, as currently proposed, section 117a, 117b, 117c, and

117d in the bill are unhelpful to advancing the national and

research security interests of the United States. Indeed, the

new faculty and staff gift reporting requirement for any and

all countries is excessive, will prove counterproductive, and

divert important university resources away from more valuable

and focused efforts to address legitimate research security

risks. Additionally, the bill's contract waiver requirement

will prevent U.S. researchers and students from participating

in important international scientific collaborations and

exchange programs, ultimately harming--not helping--the U.S.

maintain its global leadership position in critical areas of

scientific research.

We are also concerned: (1) the version of the bill now

being considered on the floor contains new language not

included in the bill marked up by the House Education and

Workforce Committee that raises additional concerns for which

the impacts are not yet fully understood; and (2) given

recent actions taken by the Trump administration to

significantly reduce the staff of and dismantle the U.S.

Department of Education, we do not believe it is sensible for

Congress to now assign that department with new U.S. national

and research security responsibilities. We also endorse

separate comments opposing the Act made by the American

Council on Education (ACE).

AAU's specific concerns are outlined in greater detail

below:

(1) Broad usage of waivers will restrict important international

research collaborations and exchange programs

Section 117a of the DETERRENT Act requires academic

institutions to apply for and obtain a waiver from the

Department of Education before entering a contract with a

country of concern or a foreign entity of concern. The waiver

requirement would slow down and require unprecedented

approval by the Department of Education for all contracted

academic research collaborations and all student academic

exchanges or joint cultural and education programs with

countries such as China, including collaborations, exchanges,

and programs that have minimal national security concern or

connection to critical technologies.

Additionally, we are concerned that the Department of

Education lacks the expertise necessary to assess national

security risks associated with scientific research and

related partnerships. These concerns are further heightened

by the recent reductions to the department's workforce which

raise questions about the department's ability to ever fully

implement this new oversight requirement. With new and

ongoing staffing constraints, we would expect waivers to go

unanswered--effectively halting all activities requiring

departmental approval and preventing any collaborations or

academic exchanges from occurring.

A waiver requirement at the Department of Education is also

unnecessary when universities are already working to ensure

appropriate risk evaluation processes are in place. Since

2018, universities have stepped up their efforts to

recognize, address, and mitigate research security concerns.

Institutions have developed risk criteria, established risk

management committees to review international engagements and

collaborations, and have started to utilize the new NSF-

funded SECURE Center to collaborate and inform their risk

mitigation efforts. At a time of intense global competition

for talent and knowledge, it would be unwise for the U.S. to

slow down or halt productive research activities and other

programs and therefore isolate and disadvantage U.S. faculty

and students.

(2) Requiring individual faculty and staff gift and contract

disclosures from any country is excessive and will not protect or

secure scientific research

Section 117b compels institutions of higher education

receiving more than $50 million in federal research and

development funding or any Title VI funding, to implement a

policy requiring all research faculty and staff to

individually report any foreign gift valued at over $480 and

contracts over $5,000 and post that information to a publicly

available and searchable database.

This provision represents extensive overreach by the U.S.

government and would be an unprecedented expansion of

oversight by the Department of Education under Section 117.

Of particular concern, Section 117b provides unlimited scope

and no exceptions so gifts from and contracts with all

foreign countries would need to be reported, including even

friendly and neighboring countries such as Canada, Mexico,

and the UK. For research faculty and staff, this would mean

that even personal gifts they receive from family members or

family inheritance in excess of $480 dollars would need to be

reported.

While Section 117b now includes language to protect some

private information, it still raises privacy concerns for

researchers who may be required to report personal, private

financial transactions that could be made public through the

Freedom of Information Act or other efforts. As a result of

this requirement, university researchers and staff would have

to report and university administrators would have to

collect, record, and publicly post inconsequential data that

does nothing to address legitimate research security risks or

foreign influence concerns. Some researchers may ultimately

decide participating in federal research programs carries too

much burden and familial scrutiny, which will only stand to

further weaken the talent pool for U.S. research.

AAU supports ironclad enforcement of university and agency

disclosure requirements which Congress provided in Section

223 of the FY21 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Both the previous Trump and Biden administrations have also

updated agency disclosure requirements as required by

National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33).

Common disclosure forms were finalized at the end of 2023 and

federal research agencies have now adopted or are in the

process of final adoption of the harmonized common disclosure

form, which requests more details on foreign affiliations,

relationships, and financial interests from researchers

applying for federal research funding.

(3) New requirements that duplicate existing requirements will be

counterproductive

AAU sees no need for Congress to impose additional

excessive and unnecessary disclosure requirements on

university faculty and staff included in the DETERRENT Act.

Since December 2023, when the Act was last considered on the

House floor, Congress and the federal agencies have taken

multiple actions to address research security concerns and

help mitigate risks. This includes Section 226 and Section

238 of the FY 2025 NDAA which require DOD to conduct periodic

examinations of research awards to ensure compliance with

current DOD research security policy and prohibits DOD

funding to institutions of higher education that conduct

fundamental research in collaboration with covered entities

on the Section 1286 list. Additionally, the National Science

Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department

of Energy, and the Department of Defense all have announced

or already begun implementing new processes to consider risk

factors prior to awarding a grant. If a risk is identified,

mitigation measures are added to the conditions of the award.

The DETERRENT Act piles on additional requirements that are

likely to conflict, duplicate, and create confusion with

existing requirements.

In conclusion, AAU opposes the DETERRENT Act, as many of

the bill provisions will not effectively address U.S.

national and research security concerns. They will instead

needlessly divert important university resources away from

more effective methods of safeguarding and securing research

conducted on behalf of American taxpayers, protecting it from

undue foreign influence and other international threats.

We urge the House to vote ``no'' on the legislation unless

section 117a, 117b, 117c, and 117d are all removed from the

bill. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Barbara R. Snyder,

President.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1048 as currently drafted. The bill not only targets our Nation's educational institutions but also undermines the very Department we rely on to enforce these very complex policies.

Mr. Chair, you can't effectively dismantle an agency and then demand more from it. You can't ignore the fact that half of the Department's employees have been fired, and these cuts will make it even more difficult for the Department to carry out these increased responsibilities effectively. The contradiction is clear: How can you demand more reporting and enforcement from an agency that has half of its staff?

Furthermore, the bill does not really address any alleged problem. Present law already requires reporting of gifts large enough to exert any influence, and requiring the reporting of free doughnuts will not do anything to add to national security.

What it will do is add to a feeling of problems with researchers from other countries. The National Academy of Science did a survey of 1,300 Asian-American faculty and found that, although a majority, 89 percent, of these faculty desired to contribute to the United States' advancements in science and technology, many, 72 percent, feel unsafe in conducting research in the United States.

Instead of adding unnecessary burdens and penalties to our educational institutions and adding the feeling of ``unsafe'' and discrimination against minorities, we need to focus on meaningful reforms to protect the integrity of the education system and promote collaboration around the world.

We also need to use the limited resources left to the Department of Education to focus on things like academic achievement and achievement gaps; violence in schools, especially gun violence; access to college; and things like that. We need to safeguard the Department of Education, not destroy it.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to reject this bill and support the policies that strengthen, rather than dismantle, the systems that serve our students and workforce.

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

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

Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chair, what is the amendment that we are considering? Could the Chair give the page and line number?

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

Mr. Chairman, the intent of this amendment, as I understand it, is to ensure that special administrative regions, such as Hong Kong, are listed as a foreign country of concern if they are within a country of concern.

As I have discussed already, we don't need to fuel xenophobia by targeting citizens in foreign countries. This amendment goes further by singling out residents of certain special administrative regions and requires people to know what that means so they will know who they can accept doughnuts from.

This amendment does nothing to thoughtfully protect our national security, and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as I read the amendment, it says: ``insert the following before the period: `[comma] including any special administrative region within such a covered nation or any other territory that the United States recognizes as being under the control of such a covered nation on or after the date of the enactment of this subsection,' '' as to who is going to be a nation of concern.

Like I said, this is a question of whether or not you have to figure out what that means so you will know whether or not you can accept a doughnut from somebody from whatever that language means they come from. I don't know how that has anything to do with national security.

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

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

Mr. Chair, just to say that everyone from a foreign country, even a foreign country of concern, is not here for malign purposes. Some are here to do research. The idea that people are here with malign purposes that are going to use coffee and doughnuts to advance that agenda I think is not necessary for our national defense.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add Chinese military companies to the definition of ``foreign entity of concern.'' It seems to me that if it is a Chinese military company, it would already be considered under the definition of an ``entity of concern'' because they are subject to the jurisdiction or direction of China, which is a foreign country of concern.

I don't know if this adds anything. I think it would be duplicative language. Therefore, I would recommend a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to offer the Democrat amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1048.

As I have mentioned, universities collaborate with various international entities to advance complex research inquiries that contribute to the advancement of our knowledge of many issues. These international partnerships allow for a diverse range of perspectives and resources that help our Nation make significant strides in health, science, and technology.

As I have mentioned before, my Democratic colleagues and I remain committed to ensuring that universities and colleges have the resources to safeguard their work from undue foreign influence. However, I appreciate the majority's interest in addressing this important issue, but I will emphasize, again, that their proposal is far too extreme and would not promote compliance but rather deter universities from conducting collaborative research.

Specifically, with such harsh fines and limited opportunities for universities to receive guidance from the Department of Education, I am concerned that these changes to section 117 of the Higher Education Act would discourage universities from collaborating with international entities, including our strong allies, that are essential in solving important global issues.

At a time when President Trump is already illegally halting vital research across the country through disruptions to USAID and NIH funding, this international collaboration is now more essential than ever.

I am concerned that we still see language that targets individual faculty members for their collaborations with foreign entities, including their own colleagues on campus. This kind of targeting easily leads to hurtful consequences rooted in xenophobia for innocent scholars and students. We have a responsibility to strike a balance between enforcing the law and fostering safe campuses for students, scholars, and faculty.

Unlike the DETERRENT Act, our Democratic substitute takes a thoughtful approach to section 117 compliance to support universities as they evaluate and implement their research integrity and foreign influence policies.

In addition to requiring the filing of annual reports for gifts and contracts from foreign entities, our amendment would create a robust database at the Department of Education to hold these reports. It establishes commonsense sanctions for noncompliance and allows for room to help universities that need support scaling up their compliance efforts rather than punishing them by pursuing civil penalties. It establishes a single point of contact at the Department, who can't be some unverified DOGE staffer, to coordinate section 117 compliance.

The substitute also builds on the robust work done through implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act and the subsequent interagency work of the Biden administration to protect federally funded research and development from foreign influence. Our amendment would align reporting requirements to those of other Federal agencies and require the Secretary of Education to go through negotiated rulemaking to address key implementation aspects of section 117 with relevant higher education and national security stakeholders.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute, rather than the underlying bill, to enhance the ability of our Nation's universities to protect against undue foreign influence while supporting international partnerships that enhance groundbreaking scientific research, build relationships across cultures, and increase our national competitiveness.

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

Mr. Chair, I think the gentleman from Michigan had the right to close, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman has yielded back?

Mr. Chairman, by lowering the reporting threshold to $1, universities would be required to report every single gift from any country if the person is not a citizen of the United States. That would mean every cup of coffee, every doughnut, every ride home would have to be reported. This would create an unworkable increase in reporting requirements for universities and individual faculty members, which would undoubtedly lead to a significant backlog at the Department of Education when trying to review the reports and adhering to tight disclosure guidelines and timetables.

This doesn't have anything to do with national security. I think it is just an administrative nightmare, and therefore I would ask for a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 75, a bill to force small business owners to use more energy and spend more money.

Here we are at the end of March, and Republicans have not brought one bill to the floor to lower costs and tackle the cost of living for our neighbors back home. Instead, Republicans in Congress have stood idly by while American families and small business owners are left to twist in the wind, making life harder for people back home, more expensive, more difficult to receive the Social Security they rely on, adding taxes through tariffs.

It is just unconscionable because what people really want is for us to work together on solutions, and Republicans in Congress are missing in action. People want answers, but Republicans won't have townhalls. Some of them will not even answer the phone.

I also had a townhall back in St. Petersburg, Florida, last week when I was home, and people want answers. They want to know what you are doing to tackle the cost of living. Then, you come up here to the House of Representatives, and Republicans are making it more expensive because they don't want you to have an energy-efficient appliance.

This isn't something that happens overnight. This is something that manufacturers and consumer advocates worked on for years.

The previous speaker asked when the Department of Energy got into energy efficiency. It has been decades that they have been doing this, trying to help people save money through conservation.

I know that doesn't align with my Republican colleagues' Big Oil and Gas allies, but people want to save money. They want to cut pollution. They don't want us wasting their time with inane bills like this that are simply going to cost people more money.

It gets worse because Republicans in Congress are barreling toward a massive tax giveaway to billionaires paid

for by targeting the family members we love the most: our parents who rely on skilled nursing, children, pregnant women, and our neighbors with disabilities.

We know what this is. This is an attempt to distract from what is going on behind the scenes here in Washington, D.C. I have to say I think my Republican friends are out of touch with working people.

People are tired of being ripped off by special interests and politicians in Washington. This resolution is another example of that. This makes it harder for small business owners to save money through energy-efficient appliances. It essentially picks your pocket.

Mr. Speaker, have you ever been in a crowd where you are getting jostled, and then you reach back and your wallet is gone? That is exactly what is happening right here.

I hope that Republicans join Democrats in trying to reduce electric bills, but no. I hope that Republicans are going to stand up to Elon Musk as he takes a chain saw to Social Security, but no. Today, the Republicans don't even want to address the real challenges facing our neighbors, helping them with the cost of living, housing, healthcare, and electric bills. This bill will simply make matters worse.

These DOE standards are long overdue. It has been, I think, at least 6 or 7 years since they have had an update. The law says you update energy-efficient standards for appliances every few years. That is what happened under the Biden administration. They came together. Those kinds of standards also incentivize American innovation. Manufacturers in America have been the leaders.

By weakening these rules, we open our markets to companies in countries that manufacture low-efficiency products, like from China, at the expense of American companies and American families. It is not right.

I heard Mr. Pallone say that he had a townhall. A lot of the Democrats are having townhalls. I had a townhall back in the Tampa Bay area. They want help with hurricane recovery. Do you know what they are having to replace right now? Appliances. They want an appliance that is the most modern, the most efficient, the most affordable, and that is made in America, and that is what these appliance standards do. They help you save money over the long run.

They also want us to safeguard their healthcare. They want us to have an eye on Elon Musk as he takes his chain saw to all sorts of agencies.

Social Security was a topic of conversation in my townhall. Lo and behold, yesterday, there was a press report about the backdoor cuts to Social Security. It says: ``The Social Security Administration website crashed four times in 10 days this month because the servers were overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans from logging in to their online accounts. In the field, office managers have resorted to answering phones in place of receptionists because so many employees have been pushed out. Amid all this, the agency no longer has a system to monitor customer experience because that office was eliminated . . . by Elon Musk. And the phones keep ringing. And ringing.''

``The turmoil is leaving many retirees, disabled claimants, and legal immigrants needing Social Security cards with less access or shut out of the system altogether.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article titled: ``Long waits, waves of calls, website crisis: Social Security is breaking down.''

Long Waits, Waves of Calls, Website Crashes: Social Security is

Breaking Down

(By Lisa Rein and Hannah Natanson, Mar. 25, 2025)

A flood of cuts led by Elon Musk has sent the agency into

chaos as a new commissioner prepares to take charge.

The Social Security Administration website crashed four

times in 10 days this month because the servers were

overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled

Americans from logging in to their online accounts. In the

field, office managers have resorted to answering phones in

place of receptionists because so many employees have been

pushed out. Amid all this, the agency no longer has a system

to monitor customer experience because that office was

eliminated as part of the cost-cutting efforts led by Elon

Musk.

And the phones keep ringing. And ringing.

The federal agency that delivers $1.5 trillion a year in

earned benefits to 73 million retired workers, their

survivors, and poor and disabled Americans is engulfed in

crisis--further undermining the already struggling

organization's ability to provide reliable and quick service

to vulnerable customers, according to internal documents and

more than two dozen current and former agency employees and

officials, customers and others who interact with Social

Security.

Financial services executive Frank Bisignano is scheduled

to face lawmakers Tuesday at a Senate confirmation hearing as

President Donald Trump's nominee to become the permanent

commissioner. For now, the agency is run by a caretaker

leader in his sixth week on the job who has raced to push out

more than 12 percent of the staff of 57,000. He has conceded

that the agency's phone service ``sucks'' and acknowledged

that Musk's U.S. DOGE Service is really in charge, pushing a

single-minded mission to find benefits fraud despite vast

evidence that the problem is overstated. The turmoil is

leaving many retirees, disabled claimants, and legal

immigrants needing Social Security cards with less access or

shut out of the system altogether, according to those

familiar with the problems.

``What's going on is the destruction of the agency from the

inside out, and it's accelerating,'' Sen. Angus King (I-

Maine) said in an interview. ``I have people approaching me

all the time in their 70s and 80s, and they're beside

themselves. They don't know what's coming.''

King's home state has the country's oldest population.

``What they're doing now is unconscionable,'' he said.

Leland Dudek, who became acting commissioner after he fed

data to Musk's team behind his bosses' backs, has issued a

series of rapid-fire policy changes that have created chaos

for front-line staff. Under pressure from the secretive Musk

team, Dudek has pushed out dozens of officials with years of

expertise in running Social Security's complex benefit and

information technology systems. Others have left in disgust.

The moves have upended an agency that, despite the

popularity of its programs, has been underfunded for years,

faces potential insolvency in a decade and has been led by

four commissioners in five months--just one of them Senate-

confirmed. The latest controversy came last week when Dudek

threatened to shut down operations in response to a federal

judge's ruling against DOGE that he claimed would leave no

one in the agency with access to beneficiaries' personal

information.

Alarmed lawmakers are straining to answer questions back

home from angry constituents. Calls have flooded into

congressional offices. AARP announced Monday that more than

2,000 people a week have called the retiree organization

since early February--double the usual number--with concerns

about whether benefits they paid for during their working

careers will continue. Social Security is the primary source

of income for about 40 percent of older Americans.

Trump has said repeatedly that the administration ``won't

touch'' Social Security, a promise that aides say applies to

benefit levels that can be adjusted only by Congress. But in

just six weeks, the cuts to staffing and offices have already

taken a toll on access to benefits, officials and advocates

say.

`creating a fire'

With aging technology systems and a $15 billion budget that

has stayed relatively flat over a decade, Social Security was

already struggling to serve the public amid an explosion of

retiring baby boomers. The staff that reviews claims for two

disability programs was on life support following massive

pandemic turnover--and still takes 233 days on average to

review an initial claim.

But current and former officials, advocates and others who

interact with the agency--many of whom spoke on the condition

of anonymity for fear of retribution--said Social Security

has been damaged even further by the rapid cuts and chaos of

Trump's first two months in office. Many current and former

officials fear the push is part of a long-sought effort by

conservatives to privatize all or part of the agency.

``They're creating a fire to require them to come and put

it out,'' said one high-ranking official who took early

retirement this month.

Dudek, who was elevated from a mid-level data analyst in

the anti-fraud office, hurried to cut costs when he took over

in mid-February, canceling research contracts, offering

early-retirement incentives and buyouts across the agency,

and consolidating programs and regional offices. Entire

offices, including those handling civil rights and

modernization, were driven out. The 10 regional offices that

oversee field operations were slashed to four.

``I do not want to destroy the agency,'' he said in an

interview Monday. ``The president wants it to succeed by

cutting out the red tape to improve service while improving

security.''

Musk's Department of Government Efficiency team began

poring through Social Security's massive trove of private

data on millions of Americans, working in a fourth-floor

conference room at the Woodlawn, Maryland, headquarters, with

blackout curtains on the windows and an armed security guard

posted outside.

At first, the DOGE team was obsessed by false claims that

millions of deceased people were receiving benefits. Then

came new

mandates designed to address alleged fraud: Direct-deposit

transactions and identity authentication, operations that

affect almost everyone receiving benefits, will no longer be

able to be done by phone. Customers with computers will go

through the process online; those without will wait in line

at their local field office. A change announced internally

last week will require legal immigrants with authorization to

work in the United States and newly naturalized citizens to

apply for or update their Social Security cards in person,

eliminating a long-standing practice that sent the cards

automatically through the mail.

``We realize this is a significant change and there will be

a significant impact to customers,'' Doris Diaz, deputy

commissioner of operations, told the field staff Monday

during a briefing on the changes, a recording of which was

obtained by The Washington Post. She said the agency was

``working on a process'' for homeless and homebound customers

who cannot use computers or come into an office--and

acknowledged that service levels will decline.

In the weeks before that briefing, phone calls to Social

Security surged--with questions from anxious customers

wondering whether their benefits had been or would be cut and

desperate to get an in-person field office appointment. That

is, if they could get through to a live person.

Depending on the time of day, a recorded message tells

callers their wait on hold will last more than 120 minutes or

180 minutes. Some callers report being on hold for four or

five hours. A callback function was available only three out

of 12 times a Post reporter called the toll-free line last

week, presumably because the queue that day was so long that

the call would not be returned by close of business.

The recording that 66-year-old Kathy Martinez heard when

she called the toll-free number two weeks ago from the San

Francisco Bay Area said her hold time would be more than

three hours--she was calling to ask what her retirement

benefits would come to if she filed for them now or waited

until she turned 70. She hung up and tried again last week at

7 a.m. Pacific time. The wait was more than 120 minutes, but

she was offered a callback option, and in two hours she spoke

with a ``phenomenally kind person who called me,'' she said.

Martinez said she wants to wait to file for benefits to

maximize her check. But ``I'm kind of thinking, I wonder if I

should take it now. When I apply, I will do it over the

phone. But will there still be a phone system?''

`not acceptable'

Aging, inefficient phone systems have dogged Social

Security for years. A modernization contract with Verizon

begun under the first Trump administration suffered multiple

delays, system crashes and other problems. As commissioner in

the last year of the Biden administration, former Maryland

governor Martin O'Malley moved the project to a new

contractor, Amazon Web Services, and data shows that the

average wait time for the toll-free line was down to 50

minutes, half of today's average. But O'Malley ran out of

time to switch the new system to field office phones, he

said.

Now a perfect storm has overtaken the system. Turnover

that's normally higher than 10 percent has worsened at the 24

call centers across the country. Some employees took early

retirement and buyout offers--a number that Dudek said was

``not huge'' but that current and former officials estimate

could be significant.

Shonda Johnson, a vice president at the American Federation

of Government Employees Council 220 who represents 5,000 call

center staffers, said low pay (starting salary is $32,000 a

year), anger at a return-to-office mandate after years of

telework, rapid policy changes, and frustration with how the

Trump administration is treating federal employees have hurt

morale to the point that people aren't giving their all to

the job.

``When you're facing threats yourself, it kind of prevents

you from being totally there for the public you're

servicing,'' she said.

Asked about worsening phone service, Dudek told reporters

in a call last week that ``a 24 percent answer rate is not

acceptable.''

``I want people who want to get to a person to get to a

person,'' he said, adding that ``all options are on the

table'' to improve phone service, including outsourcing some

call center work.

The new limits on phone transactions take effect at the end

of the month, but field offices have been deluged for weeks,

even as DOGE is targeting an unspecified number of field and

hearing offices for closure over the next three years.

In one office in central Indiana, the phone lines are

jammed by 9 a.m. with hundreds of retirees, further taxing a

staff of less than a dozen that is responsible for nearly

70,000 claimants across the state, according to one employee.

That worker, who like others spoke on the condition of

anonymity for fear of retribution, said the questions have

become predictable: What is the U.S. DOGE Service doing to

Social Security? Will the office close? Will my benefits

continue?

The employees, with no training yet on the impending

changes, have few answers. ``I hope we're going to be here,''

the employee tells caller after caller. ``But I can't

guarantee anything.''

Complicated benefits cases are falling by the wayside, the

employee said. Online claims, which are completed by field

staff, are piling up.

``There is just no time to breathe or get anything else

done,'' she said. ``We used to be efficient.''

Another employee in a regional office said the staff was

told at a recent briefing that field offices across the

country are seeing ``exponential growth'' in foot traffic.

The elderly are not only calling but showing up at bricks-

and-mortar buildings to ask about the DOGE-led changes.

In one Philadelphia office, the federal government's

return-to-office edict has left 1,200 staffers competing for

about 300 parking spots, according to an employee. Staffers

wake up as early as 4:30 a.m. to try to snag a space, and

some are buying backup spots for $200 a month nearby. As

morale has cratered, some employees have stopped wearing

business clothes and now come to work in jeans and a T-shirt

because, as they tell colleagues, they no longer take pride

in their work, the employee said.

`OFF THE CHARTS'

Scammers are already taking advantage of the chaotic

moment, according to internal emails obtained by The Post.

Last week, employees in several offices were warned that

seniors were reporting receiving emails from accounts

pretending to be linked to Social Security. The messages

asked recipients to verify their identity to keep receiving

benefits.

``Sounds like scammers are jumping on this press release to

trick the elderly,'' one Social Security staffer wrote to

colleagues Thursday, referring to the agency's announcement

of the in-person verification program.

In Baltimore, an employee who works on critical payment

systems said nearly a quarter of his team is already gone or

will soon be out the door as a result of resignations and

retirements. Talented software developers and analysts were

quick to secure high-paying jobs in the private sector, he

said--and the reduction in highly skilled staff is already

having consequences.

His office is supposed to complete several software updates

and modernization processes required by law within the next

few weeks and months, he said. But with the departures, it

seems increasingly likely that it will miss those deadlines.

His team is also called on to fix complicated technology

glitches that stop payments. But many of the experts who make

those fixes are exiting.

``That has to get cleaned up on a case-by-case basis, and

the experts in how to do that are leaving,'' the Baltimore

employee said. ``We will have cases that get stuck, and

they're not going to be able to get fixed. People could be

out of benefits for months.''

Meanwhile, a DOGE-imposed spending freeze has left many

field offices without paper, pens and phone headsets--at the

exact moment phone calls are spiking, the employee in Indiana

said.

The freeze drove all federal credit cards to a $1 1imit,

and purchasers for the agency were reduced to about a dozen

people for 1,300 offices, said one employee in the Northeast.

These purchasers must get a green light from higher-ups for

anything other than 12 specific preapproved transactions,

according to emails obtained by The Post. The list includes

``shipping costs,'' ``phone bills,'' ``Legionella testing''

and ``services to support fire safety and emergency

response.'' It does not include basic office supplies.

The field office in Portland, Oregon, is so slammed that

the claims staff has told advocates to send questions or

information by fax because they can't get to the phones,

according to Chase Stowell, case management supervisor for

Assist, a nonprofit that helps disabled people apply for

benefits. Many of them are homeless.

``The attrition rates in Portland are off the charts,''

Stowell said. ``They just don't pick up the phone. They were

already short-staffed. They've told us they just don't trust

that there's a reliable system to get ahold of them by

voicemail.''

The service issues keep bubbling up to members of Congress.

Hundreds of Maryland residents turned out for a town hall

meeting last week hosted by Baltimore County Council member

Pat Young about a mile from Social Security headquarters.

Asked by one retiree in the audience to provide ``a little

bit of hope'' that his Social Security benefits would not be

cut, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Maryland) conceded, ``The

truth of the matter is that we don't know what they intend.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a real cry for help, and we need Republicans and Congress focused on Americans' pocketbooks, not trying to distract from the massive tax giveaway to billionaires and special interests.

Mr. Pallone is absolutely right. They are out of touch. Let's send a message and vote ``no'' on this bill and get back to work on safeguarding the pocketbooks of our neighbors back home.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1048.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1048.

Foreign nations, including our biggest adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party, contribute billions of dollars to American universities. The lack of transparency around foreign relationships should concern every American as we see stolen research, anti-Semitic propaganda, and academic censorship. None of these things belong inside our borders let alone on our college campuses.

By establishing footholds in American schools, bad actors gain access to valuable research and intellectual property that can be used to bolster their own military and undermine our Nation's best interests.

Under the Higher Education Act, schools are required to report foreign gifts and funding. Unfortunately, loose legislative language, the Biden-Harris administration's inaction, and colleges' refusal to adhere to the law have resulted in billions of foreign funds infiltrating our country undetected. Last year, a congressional investigation of two research universities uncovered nearly $40 million in unreported research contracts with the Chinese Communist Party. That is $40 million in unreported funds at just two universities.

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

This is why we need the DETERRENT Act. It closes these loopholes and has more strict reporting requirements for foreign funding and contracts. It also will hold institutions accountable by imposing fines, such as the loss of student aid funding for schools that continually fail to comply.

This bipartisan bill is a commonsense solution to an irrefutable problem, which is why it passed last Congress with bipartisan support. We should be loud and clear: No American university should be helping the hidden agendas of the Chinese Communist Party or other nations continue to threaten U.S. national security.

I thank Mr. Baumgartner for introducing this vital piece of legislation. I would also like to highlight that the DETERRENT Act includes bills from my committee colleagues Representative Harris, Representative Owens, and Representative Messmer.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the DETERRENT Act. Doing so will help defend against our adversaries while also holding our institutions to a higher standard. Take foreign money first, ask questions later is not the way to go.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concerns of my colleague, but my committee has worked very closely with the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to combat malign influence at our universities.

One type of malign influence is very different than what we are talking about here. The influence is known as transnational repression, which is efforts by the CCP to exert influence over dissidents, dissidents that could be coming here to gain a great education at our universities but are discouraged by the CCP. This legislation would encourage students seeking an education here and be able to push back against the malign influence of the CCP.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris), a cosponsor of this bill with portions of his bill in this bill, as well.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messmer), an upstanding, proud member of this committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the vice chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee as well as the chairman of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), the subcommittee chair of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know my good friend and colleague's concern is sincere about faculty involvement in reporting in institutions,

of course, that know how to keep records of sports donors, boosters, and alumni who are contributing various things. I think this is even more important.

My colleague argued that requiring researchers to disclose foreign gifts and contracts would be invasive and unnecessary. I first remind my colleague that this requirement applies to specific researchers involved in government contracts who are at specific high research institutions. These are faculty working in crucial and sensitive research, areas our adversaries have targeted time and time again.

This is not just an abstract problem. Just in the last 2 years, prominent research faculty at Harvard, Stanford, the University of Maryland, and the University of Delaware were found to not have disclosed foreign funding from Chinese sources, just to name a few examples. Reporting in-kind support specifically for a researcher's grant is critical, but deterrent provisions also cover other ways our adversaries can influence faculty.

Democrats also continue to falsely claim that the DETERRENT Act would require reporting for everyday activities like doughnuts or coffee. The DETERRENT Act holds faculty to the same standard for monetary gifts as Members of Congress. A gift of a $5,000 purse from a foreign source rightfully needs to be scrutinized and publicized.

Regarding privacy concerns, I do want to point out that these individuals are often happy to voluntarily publish their own names, their email addresses, and their donors when it comes to their own published works. Many universities have open directories on their websites. However, the DETERRENT Act does have a commonsense privacy protection included.

The American public deserves transparency, and I urge critics of the bill to ask why relationships, including those with our worst enemies and our adversaries, should continue to lie in the shadows.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues who have come to speak today on such an important matter regarding not just higher education but national security.

International collaboration is not inherently bad, but foreign nations have been able to operate in the dark for far too long. When foreign adversaries give to universities, it is not out of the goodness of their hearts. It is because they want something in return. Sometimes that is extremely negative.

Each dollar that is accepted comes with strings attached, and that can influence student behavior or gain access to research. The DETERRENT Act is a crucial step toward transparency and protecting American education and students from malicious foreign influence. The current system has allowed our Nation's students to become targets for our adversaries, and that is unacceptable.

We must pass this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is essentially the same amendment that my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Scott, offered last Congress on the floor as well as this Congress during committee markup.

Sadly, the same serious problems remain, I believe. Instead of taking the threats of foreign influence seriously, this amendment is insufficient to protect our students and institutions from our worst adversaries.

The amendment, first, makes it easier for foreign sources to be undetected, doubling the threshold for contracts to $100,000 and allowing gifts under $250,000 over a 3-year span to be unreported. Bad actors will seek any possible way to avoid transparency about their attempts to harm America through their influence over American postsecondary education. A strict threshold is essential to stop that from happening.

The annual thresholds in the DETERRENT Act are simple and align with other requirements in existing law such as in the CHIPS Act and the Presidential Memorandum on United States Government-Supported Research and Development National Security Policy.

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

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

The Democratic ANS also has terrible carve-outs that provide gaping loopholes for cunning adversaries. The amendment allows gifts and contracts to be rendered anonymous, with no foreign source identification, and also exempts all clinical trials. These loopholes will make it easier for foreign sources to conceal their relationships, rendering disclosures all but useless. Simple transparency is the best way to ensure partnerships are as good as institutions claim.

Finally, the Democratic proposal ensures schools have no financial risk for failing to disclose foreign funds. Under this proposal, years of flouting section 117 simply allow schools to go right back to their same financial state before accepting the gift in the first place.

It is time to take foreign influence seriously. I stand against this amendment. It is time we hold institutions accountable for accepting foreign donations and keeping them from the public. The bipartisan support we have for this bill shows the seriousness of this problem. This amendment shows that some Democrats are still willing to turn a blind eye to attempts by hostile regimes to influence students and faculty on our college campuses.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

The DETERRENT Act conforms section 117 with other existing regulations, which is why the bill's definitions of countries of concern come from existing law. The four countries on the countries of concern list are rightfully in statute as unique threats to the United States. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran represent countries that are actively hostile to the U.S. and are serious security threats. The DETERRENT Act ensures that any relationship with these countries is extremely cautious and proactively transparent.

In contrast, this amendment attempts to use the illegitimate International Criminal Court to determine what countries are threats to the United States. The people of the United States in majority do not support that. As President Trump has stated, the ICC has baselessly asserted jurisdiction over the United States--and our citizens agree-- and its allies like Israel and further abused its power by issuing frivolous arrest warrants.

There is no reason to use the ICC to define what countries are actively seeking to harm the United States. We can do that. I oppose this amendment that targets Israel and hurts American interests, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, again, this amendment is designed, I believe, to target Israel at a time when it is desperately seeking to defend its citizens against terrorists.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the DETERRENT Act ensures section 117 is aligned with existing statute. The four countries on the countries of concern list are rightfully in statute as unique threats to the United States. That is our concern. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran represent countries that are actively hostile to the U.S. and are serious security threats.

Endowment investments in companies controlled by our adversaries could result in dangerous support for our enemies. This is why the DETERRENT Act requires institutions to disclose any such investments of concern. It is important for our wealthiest institutions to be transparent with the public about this danger.

In contrast, this amendment attempts to use the illegitimate International Criminal Court to determine what countries are threats to the United States and targets endowment investments into those threats.

The ICC has baselessly asserted jurisdiction over the United States and its allies like Israel and further abused its power by issuing frivolous arrest warrants. There is no reason to use the ICC to define what countries are actively seeking to harm the United States and what endowment investments should be transparent.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment that targets Israel and hurts American interests.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern and the passion of my colleague from Michigan. I concur that I and sponsors and cosponsors of this bill believe in First Amendment liberties and freedom of expression.

This bill is about specific concerns, not all of the countries of the world. I am not sure if my colleague was here during the debate to hear the actual statistics of the dollars that have been invested by malign actors, countries of concern, in this country that don't compare with any other that was in the list that my colleague read.

Again, this amendment on this bill, outside of the specifics of the bill, is designed to attack Israel for daring to defend itself from terrorists, which they did. This amendment has no place in the bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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