[Pages H1232-H1238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 24, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY RELATING TO ``ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM: ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZERS''; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 75, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL
OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE
ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RELATING TO ``ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM:
ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATORS, FREEZERS,
AND REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1048,
DEFENDING EDUCATION TRANSPARENCY AND ENDING ROGUE REGIMES ENGAGING IN
NEFARIOUS TRANSACTIONS ACT

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 242

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 24) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-
In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers''. All points of order
against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The
joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 75) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Department of Energy relating to ``Energy
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-
Freezers''. All points of order against consideration of the
joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1048) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen
disclosure requirements relating to foreign gifts and
contracts, to prohibit contracts between institutions of
higher education and certain foreign entities and countries
of concern, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their
respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Education and Workforce now printed in the
bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-1 shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the
five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
on any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Virginia is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. 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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. 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.

[[Page H1233]]

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.

{time} 1230

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. NEGUSE. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members that the rules do
not allow references to persons in the gallery.
Ms. FOXX. 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

[[Page H1234]]

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.

{time} 1245

Mr. NEGUSE. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today House Republicans are wasting time
talking about walk-in freezers and refrigerators. That is what
Republicans think is urgent, commercial freezers and refrigerators.
Do you know what I think that is?
I think that is insane. I think it is unhinged. It is not what I am
hearing at my townhalls. I have done six townhalls, and thousands of
people have shown up. Maybe if Republicans actually held townhalls and
listened to people, they would know what the hell is going on right
now. People are not worried about commercial walk-in freezers or
refrigerators, Mr. Speaker. They are pissed at Elon and his unelected,
un-appointed bureaucrats for blowing up the Department of Education.
That is what they are worried about.
They are demanding resignations because Trump's national security
team recklessly mishandled classified information on unsecured phones.
They might as well have mailed a copy to the Kremlin, for God's sake.
People are mad as hell that you guys are going to try to kill Social
Security.
Mr. Speaker, you can say whatever you want, but that is what
Republicans want to do. They want to kill Social Security. That is a
fact.
They want to raid Social Security like a piggy bank so Elon can steal
people's money and give more tax breaks to billionaires.
I was at a retirement community in my district on Friday, and seniors
are scared out of their minds. They are not stupid. They know what is
happening. It is crystal clear. They see through all the BS, and they
know Elon and Trump are trying to sabotage Social Security so they can
start kicking people off.
The Social Security website crashed four times this month. Millions
of Americans couldn't log into their accounts. Elon fired so many
people that there is nobody to answer the phones at some Social
Security offices. The lines keep ringing and ringing and ringing.
We don't even know how long wait times are because, get this, they
eliminated the program to track customer satisfaction. Elon is still
lying saying that millions and millions of dead people are collecting
Social Security checks and calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.
Mr. Speaker, that is a lie. It is not true, and he knows it is not
true. We heard Donald Trump parrot that same propaganda in this Chamber
because president Elon told him to and because they want an excuse to
cut seniors off of Social Security. These guys are rich and out-of-
touch billionaires who just don't get it. They are having champagne and
caviar at Mar-a-Lago while senior citizens wait for hours on the phone
to talk to somebody.
Trump's Commerce Secretary said that if Social Security didn't send
out checks for a month, his 94-year-old mother-in-law would not
complain. That is good for her, but he is a billionaire, for God's
sake. It must be nice to have one in the family.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker. Most people are not so lucky.
When I talk to seniors, they tell me that one missed Social Security
check means going hungry. It means falling behind on rent. It means
skipping medications.
People out there can't afford groceries, but Trump's team is telling
them to go buy Tesla stock. That is their retirement plan. These people
are nuts, Mr. Speaker.
The bottom line is that for Republicans, Social Security is just
another thing they can cut to pay for billionaire tax breaks.
Guess what, Elon. We are not letting you get your greedy, grubby,
billionaire hands anywhere near Social Security. It is not a handout.
It is not a giveaway. It is a benefit that 70 million Americans paid
into for their entire lives expecting that it would be there when they
needed it. It is a promise, and we are going to fight like hell to

[[Page H1235]]

keep that promise for the people who built this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities towards the President.
Ms. FOXX. 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. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. NEGUSE. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not going to issue an advisory
opinion.
Mr. NEGUSE. 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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not correct on that point.
Mr. NEGUSE. 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.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we are in a constitutional crisis.
President Trump and his co-president Musk apparently are blatantly
rejecting the role of the courts while Republicans in Congress are too
scared to stand up for their constituents or the Constitution.
When we talk about Social Security, the idea I kept hearing from the
other side is: We have done nothing to Social Security.
Yes, they have. Republicans have done nothing to stand up for their
constituents who are worried about their Social Security check. They
are appropriately worried about their Social Security check because
Republicans have done nothing to complain about the executive cutting
the workers at the Social Security Administration. Republicans have
done nothing to complain about the closing of offices at Social
Security or done nothing about the idea that a person can no longer
call Social Security. Republicans have done nothing to reject Project
2025 cuts and proposals to cut Social Security.
Social Security is also important, Mr. Speaker, because we are in a
cost-of-living crisis. Prices for groceries, food, and housing are
rising thanks to Trump's policies and Trump's tariffs.
What are House Republicans doing in response to these crises?
Bringing appliance bills, appliance bills which show how out of touch
they are with their constituents. These appliance bills, by the way,
have consequences. They raise costs. They raise costs so that American
small businesses will pay for utilities so that big companies, those
big utility companies, can continue racking up more profit.
Republicans seem to always stand with the greediest corporations and
not the consumers.
For those few Republicans--not our colleague here--but those few
Republicans who are willing to hold townhalls, they are hearing a lot
of anger

[[Page H1236]]

about Medicaid and Social Security cuts, but not much about
refrigerators, are they?
What do they say in Iowa?
In Iowa they said that Trump and Musk are ``moving very rapidly
toward a dictatorship and an oligarchy.''
This is in Iowa.
In Wyoming, farmers shared with their Representative that Trump's
cuts will limit the resources they need to deal with the devastating
impacts of drought.
H.R. 1048 under this rule continues Trump's and Republicans' attacks
on higher education and the lifesaving and innovative research
conducted at our universities. I don't know why they hate our
universities so much, because we already have a law that requires
disclosures of foreign gifts. However, this Republican bill will have
impossible burdens of reporting to a Department that they want to
eliminate.
What are we doing here with a bill that goes to a Department they
want to eliminate?
This bill shows how out of touch Republicans are, once again, to
Americans' concerns because a majority of Americans want to keep the
Department of Education that funds programs for kids with disabilities,
provides student loans, and makes sure poorer schools can hire enough
teachers.

{time} 1300

If Republicans were truly worried about national security, they would
look at how this administration is destroying America's leadership
abroad, from having Signal chats about our national security to
everything else they are doing.
I will end with this Mr. Speaker: While Republicans' billionaire
class might not need public schools for their kids, the kids in my
district do.
Ms. FOXX. 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. NEGUSE. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEGUSE. 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.
Mrs. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, last week, the President of the United
States signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of
Education.
Instead of reaffirming the integrity of the Department of Education
or pursuing real plans to explain to parents how services will
continue, House Republicans are again fixated on appliances. Today, we
are debating eliminating two cost-saving energy regulations and
legislation that could hinder research at institutions of higher
education.
It is important to understand what calls for the closure of the
Department of Education would mean to local communities.
The Department of Education is responsible for protecting the civil
rights of students, exactly what this DETERRENT Act would do. The
Department of Education would handle the enforcement. The Department of
Education supports students from low-income backgrounds. They develop
and prepare educators. They provide resources for English language
learners. They collect statistics on enrollment, staffing, and crime in
schools and manage the $1.6 trillion Federal student aid program.
Parents are concerned about disruptions to programs and services that
ensure that the 7.5 million children with disabilities and the 49
million students enrolled in K-12 public education will still get the
education they deserve.
My legislation, the Department of Education Protection Act, would
shield the Department from efforts to dismantle the agency and ensure
that every student receives the free and appropriate public education
that is mandated by law.
My legislation would prohibit the use of appropriated funds to
decentralize, reduce staffing levels, or alter the responsibilities,
structure, authority, or functionality of the Department.
The Trump administration has not developed or articulated a clear
plan to how these programs would continue their functions without
disruption. They keep saying they will return it back to the States.
What has been taken from the States, and what are the next steps moving
forward?
We need the Department of Education to enforce Federal law and
protect the civil rights of students across the country.

I thank the nearly 100 Members of Congress who have already
cosponsored my legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the previous question so we can bring up my bill, the Department of
Education Protection Act.
Ms. FOXX. 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.

[[Page H1237]]

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. NEGUSE. 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).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I think ``insanity'' is a good word for
what is happening here on the House floor today. Another good word is
``bizarre.''
When I go home and I tell my constituents what happens in these
Halls, they are amazed. Today is one of those days where I am wondering
what the hell are these folks doing. While our economy is in crisis,
while groceries and housing are at an all-time high, while our veterans
and our firefighters and our teachers are being illegally fired, while
Elon Musk is dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, and while
the Secretary of Defense is trying to cover up the most incompetent
national security leak I have ever heard of in my life, the Republicans
in the House are trying to save the American people from the scourge of
walk-in cooler and refrigeration efficiency standards.
That is right. We are here wasting precious debate time on the floor
of the U.S. House of Representatives debating dismantling efficiency
standards for walk-in refrigerators. How out of touch are Republicans
with the American people? Like literally, I know Republicans are not
holding townhalls and meeting with their constituents anymore, but do
they think that the American people voted for them to waste our time on
refrigeration standards? That is what they think they were elected to
do?
Literally, how out of touch are Republicans? No American voted, no
American--I don't care where you are on the ideological spectrum, you
did not vote for this. This is ridiculous. It is preposterous and it is
just stupid.
Yesterday, it was reported that the Secretary of Defense, the
National Security Advisor, and the Vice President leaked war plans to a
journalist. This is the same administration that accidentally fired
nuclear scientists and engineers who maintain our nuclear stockpile.
This is the same administration that is illegally firing Federal
employees and dismantling Federal agencies, and they are here running a
resolution on refrigerators.

Meanwhile, tomorrow, Republicans are going to hold a hearing and haul
NPR and PBS in front of Congress to try to undermine the media just
like they did here on this floor just a few moments ago as they are
kicking the media out of the Pentagon and the White House because they
don't believe in the media anymore.
Well, maybe this is exactly what the end conclusion of dismantling
education and American democracy is because this is ridiculous. I will
vote ``no.''
Ms. FOXX. 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.

{time} 1315

Mr. NEGUSE. 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. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Neguse) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that my
commonsense amendment to the DETERRENT Act was rejected yesterday in
the Rules Committee by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
My amendment would have distinguished between benign donations from
friendly democratic countries and donations from potential adversarial,
undemocratic states.
My amendment would enact strict oversight on funding from regimes
seeking to manipulate students on university campuses and to spread
hate, particularly anti-Semitism, on those campuses for their own
agendas.
My amendment would have significantly expanded the list of countries
whose donations the universities would be required to disclose,
including a number of countries not included in the DETERRENT Act that
have given

[[Page H1238]]

billions and billions of dollars to universities in recent years.
More importantly, my amendment would also require that universities
disclose the detailed terms and conditions that they agreed to in
return for the foreign donation from this expanded list of countries,
critically revealing whether those foreign donations come with strings
attached that can foment antidemocratic influences on campuses.
Instead, this bill hampers universities' abilities to engage in
important educational programming in conjunction with our democratic
allies while failing to confront the real problem of antidemocratic and
anti-Semitic foreign influence.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we could not work in a bipartisan way
to make this bill better and to address the root issue that both sides
of the aisle are trying to address, which is the potential nefarious
foreign influence on college campuses from a list of countries far
greater than the four countries of concern outlined in the DETERRENT
Act.
Ms. FOXX. 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. NEGUSE. 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.

Ms. FOXX. 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. NEGUSE. 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.
Ms. FOXX. 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.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Neguse is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 242 Offered By Mr. Neguse of Colorado

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 433) to prohibit funds made available to the
Department of Education by previous Appropriations Acts from
being used for any activity relating to implementing a
reorganization of the Department, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 433.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.

____________________