[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 200 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6120-H6127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4468, CHOICE IN AUTOMOBILE RETAIL 
SALES ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5933, DEFENDING 
 EDUCATION TRANSPARENCY AND ENDING ROGUE REGIMES ENGAGING IN NEFARIOUS 
  TRANSACTIONS ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 88, 
  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
    UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
   EDUCATION RELATING TO ``IMPROVING INCOME DRIVEN REPAYMENT FOR THE 
  WILLIAM D. FORD FEDERAL DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM AND THE FEDERAL FAMILY 
                    EDUCATION LOAN (FFEL) PROGRAM''

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 906 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 906

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4468) to 
     prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed 
     rule with respect to emissions from vehicles, and for other 
     purposes. 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 Energy and Commerce or their 
     respective designees; (2) the amendment printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the 
     report, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  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. 
     5933) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 
     additional information in disclosures of foreign gifts and 
     contracts from foreign sources, restrict contracts with 
     certain foreign entities and foreign countries of concern, 
     require certain staff and faculty to report foreign gifts and 
     contracts, and require disclosure of certain foreign 
     investments within endowments. 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 the Workforce or 
     their respective designees. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in 
     the bill 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 part B of 
     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.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 88) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Department of Education relating to 
     ``Improving Income Driven Repayment for the William D. Ford 
     Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education 
     Loan (FFEL) Program''. 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 Education and the 
     Workforce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Indiana is recognized 
for 1 hour.

[[Page H6121]]

  

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. 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 Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House 
Resolution 906, providing for the House's consideration of several 
pieces of legislation.
  The rule provides for H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail 
Sales Act, or the CARS Act of 2023, to be considered under a structured 
rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for two measures related to education: H.R. 
5933, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes 
Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act, or the DETERRENT Act, and H.J. 
Res. 88 related to income-driven repayments for educational loans.
  H.R. 5933 would be considered under a structured rule with eight 
amendments made in order. It provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce or their designees and 
provides for one motion to recommit.
  Finally, the second education measure to be considered under a closed 
rule is H.J. Res. 88, a joint resolution nullifying the final rule 
submitted by the Department of Education on income-driven repayment 
published on July 10, 2023. It also provides for 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their designees and 
provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 4468, the CARS 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems like every week we are here talking about 
another bureaucracy under the Biden administration overstepping their 
bounds. Again and again, these out-of-control agencies under this 
administration are chipping away at our personal freedom.
  This time, it is the EPA. Specifically, their proposed new standard 
is for two-thirds of all new vehicles to be electric by 2032.
  Last night, at the Rules Committee hearing, the bill's sponsor, 
Representative Walberg, laid out why this legislation is very clearly 
necessary. This misguided EPA rule takes away consumer choice. 
Americans should be able to have every option available to them in what 
vehicle they choose to drive, specifically because automobiles vary 
greatly in both reliability and cost, and consumers have different 
wants and needs.
  Market demand, not government mandates, should drive this industry. 
If nothing else, our colleagues should support this legislation because 
it is also not ready for prime time.
  Electric vehicles are more expensive. Until the cost comes down, we 
shouldn't be forcing these purchases on consumers.
  While Americans are experiencing crushing inflation, the 
infrastructure needed to support EVs does not exist. This rule 
disadvantages rural communities like mine and so many others across the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know it is a Biden administration priority to 
pour billions into green energy and clean cars. The President even 
recently invoked the Defense Production Act, spending $169 million in 
green energy handouts for electric heat pumps for water heaters. That 
doesn't seem like a top priority to meet the needs of our national 
defense.
  This EPA rule simply ignores the practicality, cost, and choice for 
Americans, and it is wrong.
  One doesn't need to look further than Secretary Granholm's recent 
failed and taxpayer-funded EV road trip. This PR stunt was ridiculed 
for highlighting the shortcomings of EVs rather than their potential 
and also resulted in a probe by the House Oversight and Energy and 
Commerce Committees.
  Most egregiously during this trip, the police were called when 
Secretary Granholm's staff blocked a charging station from use by a 
Georgia family with an infant in the middle of summer.
  It is unbelievable, really, but under President Biden's EPA, this 
would be reality for everyone everywhere in America.
  In addition, with the forced and accelerated transition to EVs, this 
EPA standard prioritizes benefits to China over the needs of the 
American people. As we all know, China controls many of the raw 
materials necessary for batteries and other components for EVs. By 
rushing to meet arbitrary green and climate agendas, the United States 
is more likely to solidify China's control of the energy future rather 
than save the planet.
  Mr. Speaker, we must be measured, trust market forces and American 
consumers, and not push top-down and expensive mandates. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 4468.
  Moving on to education, as a member of the Education and the 
Workforce Committee, I am glad to see floor consideration of H.R. 5933, 
the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging 
in Nefarious Transactions Act, also known as the DETERRENT Act.
  This legislation would bring much-needed transparency, 
accountability, and clarity to foreign gift reporting requirements for 
     colleges and universities across the Nation.
  I know many of our colleagues share our concerns over foreign 
adversaries infiltrating college campuses. Foreign adversaries like the 
Chinese Communist Party have been leveraging ties with institutions of 
higher education in order to further soft power goals for many years, 
including by shaping public narratives, influencing academic curricula, 
sowing social divisions, and undermining faith in our public 
institutions and our very system of government. It must stop.
  While it is clear that global partnerships and academic collaboration 
can be beneficial for U.S. students at our universities, it is our 
responsibility to carefully monitor foreign partnerships, particularly 
with countries of concern, and we must be steadfast in doing so. We 
must ensure our adversaries are not given a platform in our classrooms 
to work against the United States' values and interests.
  The Biden administration doesn't seem to take this responsibility 
seriously, though. They have not opened a single new investigation 
since taking office.
  Just this week, the Department of Education updated their section 117 
FAQs. This was their first update to these FAQs since taking office 3 
years ago, and it was undoubtedly a result of pressure from our work on 
the Education and the Workforce Committee in passing the DETERRENT Act.
  Because of the Biden administration's failure on section 117, the 
University of Pennsylvania alone took $14 million from unnamed 
contributors in China and Hong Kong and $2.4 million from unnamed 
contributors in Saudi Arabia since 2021. These amounts are well over 
the threshold of concern and are reasons alone to pass the DETERRENT 
Act.
  Back home in Indiana, our own Valparaiso University was home to a 
Confucius Institute. These institutes are funded and arranged by the 
People's Republic of China and have raised concerns about improper 
influence over teaching, espionage, and undermining Taiwan and its 
relationship with the United States. Indiana Attorney General Todd 
Rokita investigated this Confucius Institute, and though it has now 
been closed, the need for oversight remains.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original supporter of this 
legislation, and I urge its passage.
  Finally, H.J. Res. 88 is a joint resolution nullifying President 
Biden's reckless income-driven repayment plans that would effectively 
forgive nearly

[[Page H6122]]

half of the student loan debt and cost taxpayers at least $138 billion 
over the next 10 years.
  It would be a direct cost to taxpayers because this proposed student 
loan debt plan simply transfers the burden of paying these loans away 
from student loan borrowers and onto those taxpayers who have chosen 
not to go to college.
  A 2019 Government Accountability Office report found that 95,100 
income-driven repayment plans were held by borrowers who reported zero 
income yet earned enough wages to make monthly student loan payments. 
Borrowers with these 95,100 income-driven repayment plans owed nearly 
$4 billion in outstanding direct loans.
  As to their family size, about 40,900 income-driven repayment plans 
were approved based on large family sizes of nine or more, which are 
atypical for income-driven repayment plans. GAO also found two income-
driven repayment plans that were approved in which the borrower 
reported a family size of 93. Borrowers with atypical family sizes of 
nine or more owed almost $2.1 billion in outstanding direct loans.
  Given all of this reported fraud, I have significant concerns with 
the Biden administration's income-driven repayment plans.

                              {time}  1230

  Since I went to college, tuition and fees have increased almost three 
times more than the rate of inflation, many due to subsidized tuition 
in the form of grants and loans that are already largely paid by 
taxpayers. Student debt in the U.S. is now over $1.6 trillion, with the 
average borrower owing over $37,000.
  Since 1980, the average cost of college attendance has risen 180 
percent. We can't keep writing blank checks to universities, 
particularly when many are failing our students and graduation rates 
are poor.
  We need solutions that will drive down the cost of college. The 
income-driven repayment plan doesn't address the root cause of this 
issue, and it places an unfair burden on the taxpayer.
  I look forward to the consideration of this legislation that will 
actually address the underlying issue here, and I urge the passage of 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule would bring three measures to the House floor. 
First, H.R. 5933, the DETERRENT Act. Democrats and Republicans agree 
there ought to be transparency if higher education institutions get 
money from foreign countries.
  Thankfully, President Biden has worked to improve compliance with 
existing laws. Because of that, over $1.5 billion more per year have 
been reported publicly under this President than the prior one.
  Instead of working together and building on this progress, 
Republicans are trying to advance this bill that adds onerous new 
reporting requirements, making it harder for our academic institutions 
and researchers to remain number one in the world.
  The second bill here, H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail 
Sales Act of 2023, blocks the Environmental Protection Agency's final 
authority to finalize a car emissions rule protecting Americans from 
motor vehicle pollution.
  The message House Republicans are sending here is pretty simple. Yet 
again, they are putting polluters over people and picking winners and 
losers in our transportation sector.
  Over 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy air 
pollution, with children, the elderly, low-income communities, and 
communities of color being disproportionately at risk. Air pollution is 
associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States 
every single year.
  The health impacts of rolling back these standards are bad enough. 
Frankly, it is outrageous that this majority continues to actively 
fight against innovation and against lower energy costs and against the 
private sector making decisions based on what people actually want.
  The reality is that EVs are already popular. American demand for EVs 
is largely outpacing supply as demand has increased by over 350 percent 
in the last few years alone. They are also cheaper to own, decreasing 
fuel costs by 50 percent or more, and ongoing technological 
advancements are translating to better options for consumers every 
year.
  I must point out that Republicans oppose our investments in American 
EV manufacturing. They are actually advocating for American industry to 
stand down. Rather than conceding ground to global adversaries like 
China, Democrats want to invest in America's ability to compete and 
beat our economic competitors.
  For all these reasons and more, H.R. 4468 is a bad bill that denies 
Americans immense public health and environmental benefits of the EPA 
proposed standards.
  Finally, we have H.J. Res. 88, a bill that would block the Biden 
administration from implementing a new income-driven repayment plan to 
help save borrowers money.
  I want people to listen carefully to me. President Biden tried to 
create a new plan to reduce people's student loan monthly payments, and 
Republicans want to stop him from doing it for no other reason than 
they don't care. They literally do not care about this issue.
  It seems that Republicans are willing to stop at nothing to prevent 
hardworking Americans from getting student loan relief. This is just 
another attempt to attack the Biden administration for addressing the 
serious financial concerns of low- and middle-income student loan 
borrowers.
  The best thing about this bill, the only good thing I can say here, 
Mr. Speaker, is that it failed to pass the Senate. In other words, this 
bill is going nowhere.
  Another wasted week for America, Mr. Speaker, courtesy of this 
Republican majority. Today, three more bills that do nothing--nothing--
to make life better for anyone.
  Republicans want to increase the cost of student loans for workers 
and families and make it easier for Big Oil CEOs to pollute our 
communities. That is their agenda.
  They have been a total and complete failure, the least productive 
Congress in history, with the most rules failed in a single year. They 
have dragged our country to the brink of default, almost shut down the 
government twice, and wasted weeks and weeks fighting about which one 
of them should be Speaker.
  Bill after bill, amendment after amendment to ban abortion and attack 
LGBTQ people, and now they want to impeach the President when even 
their own Members say there is no ``there'' there. They are doing a 
lousy job, and it shows. The only good news is that they are not going 
to be in the majority after this next election.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the 
underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Langworthy).
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule which includes 
consideration of an important step to protect Americans' access to 
affordable and reliable internal-combustion engine vehicles, gas-
powered cars.

  Since his very first day in office, President Biden declared war on 
domestic energy producers and made it his administration's goal to 
weaponize the EPA and other agencies to impose the radical Green New 
Deal agenda on the backs of the American people.
  Earlier this year, unelected bureaucrats at the EPA issued a proposed 
rule that would tighten emissions standards to make electric vehicles 
virtually the only option available to drivers in the United States.
  What does this mean for the average family? They will be forced to 
pay thousands of dollars more for their next car, thousands more for 
their at-home charging infrastructure and replacement batteries, and 
hundreds more per year in car insurance.
  Since Biden took office, my constituents have seen their energy bills 
go through the roof. Forcing them to charge multiple cars at home is 
not an option. It is not just the cost. There is ample evidence that 
New York's energy grid is entirely unprepared to handle this.

[[Page H6123]]

  Reports have already shown that the Federal Government's attempts to 
subsidize the purchase of electric vehicles haven't worked. Despite 
$7,500 in available tax credits, hardworking Americans still consider 
purchasing these vehicles too costly for their family budgets.
  Mr. Speaker, we need market-driven approaches that puts consumer 
choice, affordability, and reliability first, and that means putting a 
stop to this administration's efforts time and again to ban, prohibit, 
and regulate out-of-existence perfectly safe and affordable products 
and appliances.
  Since 2021, we have seen the Biden administration impose new 
regulations through the EPA and the Department of Energy that will 
ultimately impact what appliances Americans can buy, whether Americans 
can affordably heat their homes, and now what cars they believe 
Americans should be driving.
  I strongly support this legislation, H.R. 4468, to preserve America's 
freedom of choice and to put a stop to this administration's efforts to 
push this country into an energy future that is less affordable, less 
reliable, and more dependent than ever on our foreign adversaries like 
China.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the portion of this rule 
which would once again throw our student loan system into crisis. 
Congress' failure to address the student debt crisis has left American 
borrowers with over $1.6 trillion in student loans, and Pennsylvania 
borrowers hold some of the highest student debt in the Nation.
  This crippling burden is preventing generations of Americans from 
taking public service jobs, from buying homes and cars, and from fully 
participating in our economy.
  The resolution we are considering today does nothing to solve the 
student loan crisis. It would undermine the income-based repayment 
program authorized by Congress years ago and will create more chaos and 
confusion for student loan borrowers.
  Nearly 5.5 million borrowers across the country have enrolled in the 
SAVE plan in just the past 3 months. In my district alone, 13,700 
people have signed up in anticipation of an average relief of $1,200 a 
year.
  If this resolution were to pass, millions of borrowers enrolled in 
this program will be left in limbo again, unsure how they can meet 
their student loan obligations and keep food on the table and a roof 
over their heads.
  Instead of shooting down every attempt to address this crisis, 
Congress must take action to provide comprehensive, long-term solutions 
to make higher education more affordable and simplify the repayment 
process for student loan borrowers.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).
  Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the CARS Act, which 
will stop this executive overreach by the Biden administration by 
preventing the implementation of regulations that seek to limit 
consumer choice instead of allowing consumers to choose the vehicle 
that best suits their needs.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has produced a rule that would 
effectively require two-thirds of all vehicles sold in the United 
States to be fully electric in less than 9 years.
  While I believe electric vehicles have their place in society, this 
misguided EPA mandate would have an immediate detrimental impact on the 
choices and the affordability of cars, trucks, and SUVs that 
are available to my constituents.

  Despite billions of dollars being spent on part of the Biden 
administration's IIJA bill to expand our Nation's EV charging network, 
at present the electric grid is incapable of supporting this, not to 
mention the fact that according to the Department of Energy, the range 
of EVs is reduced by over 40 percent in cold weather. I remind you that 
I am from the State of Wisconsin. For the rural, cold climates common 
in my district, EVs are simply not the answer at this time.
  Even more troublesome is that biofuels were barely mentioned in the 
IIJA, which means that the clean, renewable energy options to power our 
country's transportation system are nearly forgotten by the Biden 
administration, despite ethanol production supporting more than 300,000 
jobs concentrated in rural areas and adding $43 billion to the U.S. 
economic output in 2019 alone.
  I am proud to also cosponsor the Flex Fuel Fairness Act which would 
provide a meaningful incentive for automakers to manufacture flex-fuel 
vehicles in addition to battery-powered electric vehicles. This would 
offer more options to consumers and unlock increased use of lower-
carbon liquid fuel blends which contain higher levels of ethanol, 
including E85 and E30.
  Flex-fuel vehicles are the exact type of domestically supported 
transportation solution that Congress and the Federal Government should 
be incentivizing. Let's encourage these vehicles to be used, not 
Chinese-mined batteries.
  Not only will the EPA's proposed regulation severely limit consumers' 
choices for affordable vehicles that fit the need for average 
Americans, an overreliance on EVs would have drastic consequences to 
our national security. Up to 90 percent of the electric vehicle battery 
supply chain comes from the Chinese Communist Party. For the 
foreseeable future, until 2032, at least 67 percent of all forecasted 
battery cell manufacturing will be controlled by China. In contrast to 
China, the United States has 7 percent of the global battery production 
capacity.

                              {time}  1245

  The batteries that power EV require critical minerals, including 
lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and manganese. The key component 
here is cobalt.
  Mr. Speaker, 73 percent of the global cobalt output is produced by 
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and that is mined by children. 
The Chinese Communist Party controls over two-thirds of the global 
production of cobalt.
  Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we understand that if we go 
through with this measure, then we are essentially sanctioning child 
slavery. That is unforgivable.
  In fact, this bill does something, something, something. It is for 
the moms and dads who are driving their children to school. It is to 
prevent these children from having to work in slavery. It also supports 
our farmers who feed the world.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that Congress has provided $7.5 
billion for electric vehicle chargers, and they have built zero so far.
  According to this article recently published by Politico, the United 
States has around 180,000 chargers today according to the Energy 
Department, including 41,000 of the type of chargers that can alleviate 
what they are calling range anxiety. They expect that the U.S. will 
need 1.2 million public chargers by 2030 to meet the demand, including 
182,000 fast chargers.
  Again, I would say this rule is not ready for prime time. We don't 
even have the vehicle charging stations available, and we don't expect 
that if zero have been built, we will meet that demand.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include this article in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.

 Congress Provided $7.5B for Electric Vehicle Chargers. Built so Far: 
                                 Zero.

       The sluggish rollout could undermine President Joe Biden's 
     reelection messaging promoting electric vehicles.
       Congress at the urging of the Biden administration agreed 
     in 2021 to spend $7.5 billion to build tens of thousands of 
     electric vehicle chargers across the country, aiming to 
     appease anxious drivers while tackling climate change.
       Two years later, the program has yet to install a single 
     charger.
       States and the charger industry blame the delays mostly on 
     the labyrinth of new contracting and performance requirements 
     they have to navigate to receive federal funds. While federal 
     officials have authorized more than $2 billion of the funds 
     to be sent to states, fewer than half of states have even 
     started to take bids from contractors to build the chargers--
     let alone begin construction.

[[Page H6124]]

       Consumer demand for electric vehicles is rising in the 
     United States, necessitating six times as many chargers on 
     its roads by the end of the decade, according to federal 
     estimates. But not a single charger funded by the bipartisan 
     infrastructure law has come online and odds are they will not 
     be able to start powering Americans' vehicles until at least 
     2024.
       Getting chargers up and running across the country is 
     essential to reaching President Joe Biden's goal of having 
     half the vehicles sold in the United States be electric by 
     the end of the decade--a key cog of his climate agenda. 
     Americans consistently say the lack of charging 
     infrastructure is one of the top reasons they won't buy an 
     electric car.
       Republican opponents are now trying to shut down the 
     administration's efforts to build a charging network by 
     choking off its funding. And the sluggish rollout could 
     undermine Biden's EV-themed reelection messaging and increase 
     the possibility a Republican in the White House could roll 
     back the charging network efforts in 2025.
       ``It has been frustrating to say the least,'' Arcady 
     Sosinov, founder and CEO of charging manufacturer FreeWire 
     Technologies, said of the slow pace of the rollout.
       Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure package into law 
     in 2021 with $7.5 billion specifically directed toward EV 
     chargers, with an eye toward achieving his goal of building 
     500,000 chargers in the United States by 2030.
       The United States has around 180,000 chargers today, 
     according to the Energy Department. That includes 41,000 of 
     the type of fast chargers that can alleviate the dreaded 
     ``range anxiety'' of a long-distance road trip in an electric 
     vehicle.
       In a June study, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 
     projected the U.S. will need 1.2 million public chargers by 
     2030 to meet charging demand, including 182,000 fast 
     chargers.
       Administration officials insist the pace at which they are 
     rolling out the infrastructure law's charging funds is to be 
     expected, given the difficulty of creating a brand-new 
     program in every state and marshaling the private sector to 
     meet complex reliability and performance requirements for 
     each federally-funded station.
       The goal is a reliable and standardized network in every 
     corner of the nation, said Gabe Klein, executive director of 
     the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, which leads 
     the federal government's efforts on EV charging.
       ``You have to go slow to go fast,'' Klein said in an 
     interview. ``These are things that take a little bit of time, 
     but boy, when you're done, it's going to completely change 
     the game.''
       The bulk of the infrastructure law funds, $5 billion, are 
     dedicated to building fast chargers along interstate highways 
     under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program. 
     The program requires the chargers meet a strict set of 
     standards, such as being built at least every 50 miles over 
     major routes, being operational at least 97 percent of the 
     time and featuring credit card readers for easy payment.
       But Aatish Patel, president of charger manufacturer XCharge 
     North America, is worried the delays in installing chargers 
     are imperiling efforts to drive up EV adoption.
       ``As an EV driver, a charger being installed in two years 
     isn't really going to help me out now,'' Patel said. ``We're 
     in dire need of chargers here.''

                       GOP Charges Up Its Attacks

       The pace of the rollout will likely mean that few 
     federally-funded chargers will be in the ground by next 
     year's election. And Republican opponents of the vehicles 
     have seized on the lack of charging infrastructure to attack 
     Biden's efforts to boost electric vehicles.
       Former President Donald Trump has railed against subsidies 
     for EVs and the infrastructure that powers them, arguing the 
     market should dictate what type of car Americans drive. But 
     he has also relentlessly attacked EVs for their range and the 
     dearth of chargers--the issue Biden is aiming to solve with 
     the infrastructure law funds.
       ``They say the happiest day when you buy an electric car is 
     the first 10 minutes you're driving it, and then after that, 
     panic sets in because you're worried, `Where the hell am I 
     going to get a charge to keep this thing going?' '' Trump 
     said at a September rally with autoworkers in Michigan.
       In the House in November, GOP lawmakers offered amendments 
     to the transportation spending bill to strip funding from the 
     charging programs created by the infrastructure law.
       ``Not only is such an endeavor not the federal government's 
     responsibility, this program doesn't work, won't work and 
     will end up wasting massive amounts of federal money,'' Rep. 
     Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) argued on the House floor.
       Her amendment to defund the NEVI program was soundly 
     defeated, with 238 lawmakers from both parties voting against 
     it. But the House adopted a separate amendment from Rep. Eric 
     Burlison (R-Mo.) that would hollow out its sister program, 
     the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program, which 
     provides $2.5 billion for chargers in rural areas and at 
     community gathering points.
       Administration officials say they aren't concerned a future 
     administration could try to roll back the program, pointing 
     to enthusiasm for the funds from red state governors and the 
     private sector alike.
       Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, whose state broke ground 
     on the nation's first charger funded by the NEVI program in 
     October, said in a statement that he is committed to ``truly 
     positioning Ohioans for the electric future.''
       ``This groundbreaking further demonstrates the state's 
     commitment to installing chargers as quickly as possible for 
     the benefit of Ohio drivers,'' DeWine said.
       Under the infrastructure law, the NEVI funds are 
     administered by states, which can contract out the 
     construction and operation of the charging stations to 
     private companies. So far, every state has taken the initial 
     steps to receive the NEVI cash by submitting a plan to the 
     Joint Office in 2022 and an update in 2023. But if a governor 
     were to reject the funds, municipalities could apply to 
     administer the funds instead.
       ``I'm probably more excited now . . . than I've been 
     anytime since I took this job because everybody's paddling in 
     the right direction--purple state, blue state, red state,'' 
     Klein said. ``Everybody's seeing the impact of the 
     investments.''
       Following Ohio, Pennsylvania also broke ground on its first 
     NEVI-funded charger in November. Another six states have 
     awarded contracts for their first round of charging sites, 
     while 15 states plus Puerto Rico are in the process of 
     soliciting bids from the private sector.
       But 27 states and D.C. have yet to even start soliciting 
     bids, with some states like Missouri anticipating they may 
     not post their solicitation until 2025. (Three of those 
     states--Nevada, New York and Vermont--are procuring some 
     federally-funded chargers outside of a public request for 
     bids, but plan to solicit bids in the future.)
       Even some states with high rates of EV adoption, like 
     California and Washington, have yet to award any of their 
     funds.
       Sosinov noted, though, that design, engineering, 
     installation and utility upgrades could extend the wait by 
     years even after the contracts to build stations are awarded.
       The other charging program created by the law, the Charging 
     and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program, has yet to allocate 
     any funds, with the first awards expected by the end of the 
     year.
       The Biden administration is expecting a deluge of chargers 
     funded by the law to break ground in early 2024. A senior 
     administration official granted anonymity to speak on the 
     specifics of the rollout said the pace is to be expected, 
     given that the goal is to create a ``convenient, affordable, 
     reliable, made-in-America equitable network.''
       ``Anybody can throw a charger in the ground--that's not 
     that hard, it doesn't take that long,'' the official said. 
     ``Building a network is different.''
       The administration insists it is doing all it can to speed 
     up the process, including by streamlining federal permitting 
     for EV chargers and providing technical assistance to states 
     and companies through the Joint Office. It expects the U.S. 
     to hit Biden's 500,000 charger target four years early, in 
     2026, the official said.
       It's not clear, however, how many of those will be fast 
     chargers. The NEVI program prioritizes building those types 
     of chargers, especially in remote locations along interstate 
     highways where it might not otherwise be profitable for a 
     private company to build a charger.

                `Frustrating Delays' at the State Level

       The slow rollout of the NEVI program primarily boils down 
     to the difficulties state agencies and charging companies 
     face in meeting a complex set of contracting requirements and 
     minimum operating standards for the federally-funded 
     chargers, according to interviews with state and EV industry 
     officials.
       Jim McDonnell, director of engineering at the American 
     Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 
     which is assisting states in administering the federal 
     charger funding, said the work of distributing the NEVI funds 
     largely fell to state offices that had never worked on EV 
     charging before.
       ``Considering it's a brand new program and the minimal 
     amount of background that a lot of the state DOTs had in EV 
     infrastructure, procurement and deployment when we went into 
     this, I'm thrilled how fast they've gotten things off the 
     ground,'' McDonnell said.
       That's shown in the states that have been early leaders in 
     the program. Ohio was able to become the first state to break 
     ground on a NEVI charger largely because it had completed 
     years of planning and siting work for an EV network before 
     the infrastructure law passed, said Preeti Choudhary, the 
     executive director of DriveOhio, the state office 
     administering the funds.
       Charger manufacturers, meanwhile, have had to step up 
     research and development to ensure their federally-funded 
     chargers work 97 percent of the time, the new minimum 
     standard intended to alleviate persistent reliability issues 
     with America's chargers. And they've had to invest in U.S. 
     manufacturing facilities to meet new domestic sourcing 
     requirements for the equipment.
       All of that has slowed the process for states to open 
     bidding to build chargers and for companies to place bids, 
     said Patrick Murphy, who is leading the Vermont Agency of 
     Transportation's administration of the funds.
       ``This program has suffered from a number of frustrating 
     delays and will still yet as industry tries to catch up to 
     the rules that

[[Page H6125]]

     were put in place,'' Murphy said. ``But we also recognize 
     that those rules will help shape the kind of consistent 
     convenient national network that we need to grow EV 
     adoption.''

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to provide consideration of a resolution 
which clearly states that this House will keep our promise to American 
seniors and workers to protect and preserve Social Security and 
Medicare against any cuts to these crucial programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 
text of my amendment, along with any extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is important that my colleagues vote 
``yes'' on the vote to defeat the previous question because my 
Republican friends have made it clear time and time again that they are 
going after Social Security. The benefit cuts are on the table. They 
have repeatedly made that clear.
  It is important that this House speak with one voice, or at least the 
majority speak, that we reject Republican attempts to renege on our 
promise to our senior citizens and that we make it clear that we will 
not stand for any cuts to this important program.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Menendez) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H. 
Res. 178, which preserves the benefits our seniors are entitled to and 
ensures these programs are available for future generations.
  While House Republicans are focused on embracing extreme fiscal 
policies that will defund the critical programs that Americans depend 
on, House Democrats are fighting to protect and strengthen them.
  In my district alone, we have 90,000 residents who are eligible for 
Medicare and Social Security. That is why we must protect these 
critical lifelines for our seniors, families, and our most vulnerable 
neighbors.
  While Republicans may say the right things when they are with their 
constituents, their actions speak louder than words. Republicans have 
repeatedly tried to cut and modify these programs and take away the 
benefits that Americans have paid into and earned. They have proposed 
ending Federal programs after 5 years unless reauthorized. They have 
proposed eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for some seniors. They 
have proposed vouchers. They have proposed increasing the retirement 
age.
  H. Res. 178 commits the House of Representatives to protecting Social 
Security and Medicare and makes clear their status as foundational 
promises of our society. This resolution honors the wishes of the 
majority of the American people to strengthen and improve Social 
Security and Medicare and ensures that these programs will be available 
for future generations of Americans.
  In short, H. Res. 178 represents what House Democrats stand for: 
putting people over politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
we can bring up this important legislation.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
yielding me a few minutes to speak on this rule.
  The rule that I rise in support of governs H.J. Res. 88. This joint 
resolution, which is proposed today, disapproves of the final rule 
submitted by the Department of Education relating to the income-driven 
repayment scheme devised by the Biden administration.
  This scheme is bad on a number of levels. It is disastrous for not 
just the student borrower, but it is also disastrous for the 
educational institution beneficiary and the general taxpayer, all 
three. These types of plans drive up the cost of higher education 
because neither the school nor the student borrower has any incentive 
to make market-driven decisions about education. The total cost of 
tuition and fees goes up as a result.
  The scarcity of resources in this case is seemingly ignored because 
there appears to be no end of resources. Nevertheless, we know that is 
not true. The value of the education provided goes down, and the return 
on the investment is completely disregarded because the student 
borrower has no incentive to determine whether or not the amount 
borrowed has any relativity or correlation to the amount that he or she 
is going to be able to make on the back side of their education.
  They borrow whatever they want to borrow, and schools continue to 
raise tuition and fees because they know the students will not have to 
pay it back. They can borrow it from the Federal Government, and the 
taxpayer, generally, will pay that bill on their behalf.
  The second thing this new proposed rule by the Biden administration 
does is redistribute wealth through the Education Department. That is 
effectively what it does when it says: You, the borrower, don't have to 
repay your debt; everybody else in society will repay that debt.
  We simply cannot let this stand. We cannot let this rule proposed by 
the Department of Education stand. I support H.J. Res. 88 and its 
underlying rule that will disregard this rule, will unravel it, and 
will say to the Biden administration: No more. We stand for the 
taxpayers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the 
Rules Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to the rule 
and to the measures underlying it.
  Today, we have an extreme Republican proposal that would make college 
more expensive and paying for it harder for hardworking families across 
America.
  College costs have soared in recent years. They have put higher 
education out of reach for too many. They have saddled families and 
students with excessive student debt.
  We are the only country in the world facing a dire student loan debt 
crisis. The Biden administration saw this problem and said that they 
promised they would try to address it. Nevertheless, every solution 
that they have come up with that would make it easier for my 
communities, the people in rural America, Latinos, women, and people 
who haven't gone to college before and choose to, for them, they have 
made it more expensive and harder.
  The latest action by the Biden administration makes sense. It is the 
SAVE student loan repayment plan, and it is already fulfilling its 
promise. It has saved thousands of dollars for 5.5 million American 
people who are enrolled in that program, including from New Mexico--
7,500 in my own district.
  Mr. Speaker, the SAVE program ties your student loan payments to your 
income. This is vital for ``mi gente,'' the people of New Mexico, who 
often go into careers like education and public service that don't pay 
as well. This program helps people who are following their hearts into 
careers that aren't the highest paying so that when they pay their 
student debt, it will be tied to their income.
  Nonetheless, instead of addressing the debt crisis, my colleagues 
across the aisle want to gut the SAVE program and make college more 
expensive for the 5.5 million Americans using it now. This is 
outrageous.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Senate rejected this same 
Republican proposal last month.
  Let's address the student debt crisis at its roots. Let's get back to 
lowering costs for working families and putting people over politics.
  Republicans seem to always want to make it more costly and more 
expensive for people to get along. I am so pleased that Democrats don't 
and that they stand for the working family.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that the 
criticism that this bill does nothing to address the spiraling cost of 
education is just not true. The cost of higher education always rises 
in connection with the availability of student loans.

[[Page H6126]]

  Making student loans widely available with government backing has 
caused this wild cost increase in higher education, which has increased 
4.6 times the rate of inflation since 1971.
  Canceling student loan debt will not lead to reductions in the cost 
of higher education. It will, instead, likely have the opposite effect, 
encouraging colleges and universities to raise tuition and other fees, 
knowing full well that the cost of these items will ultimately be borne 
by the taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the gentlewoman from New Mexico just 
posited that it is Republicans who want to drive up the prices and 
costs of everything for the American people. However, Mr. Speaker, what 
she doesn't tell you is that what she means is that we don't believe 
that government funding is how one measures how people prosper in this 
country. In fact, it is our Democratic colleagues who force through 
regulations, policies, and programs that are making the American Dream 
completely out of reach for the American people. We are seeing it every 
single day with a President and administration that literally don't 
care what the impact is on the average American family.
  Mr. Speaker, 87 percent of Americans do not have student loans. Large 
numbers of Americans have paid off their student loans or are still 
working to do so. My wife, who is the product of a single mom and who 
put herself through school and figured it out, is still paying off her 
loans, which she has done for 20 years now. That is the truth.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to ignore the 
Supreme Court. They want to end-run both common sense and the law. They 
want to find ways to subsidize the handful at the expense of the many.
  They are doing it not just with education. While they destroy our 
education system and undermine the American Dream for the American 
public, they are also doing it with respect to chasing unicorn energy 
dreams while they subsidize billion-dollar corporations. They subsidize 
the wealthy with EVs, electric vehicles that cost $16,000 more than the 
average internal combustion engine. Now, they have a rule being carried 
out by executive fiat by the administration that they want to put in 
place that will force, by 2032, approximately two-thirds of the fleet 
of automobiles being built for the American people to be electric 
vehicles.
  That might be concerning if you are a working-class American given 
that they cost $16,000 more, given that they are demonstrably more 
expensive to repair, and given that they are demonstrably less flexible 
for your life, Mr. Speaker. If you live, for example, in Texas, you 
might need to drive from Austin to Midland or Austin to Dallas or 
Houston or need to be able to move around the State. You might be a 
farmer and need to haul goods and services.

  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't seem to care about 
people who live in the northern States, where it is cold and where 
batteries take a full charge just to defrost--in Alaska, for example.
  That mandate doesn't seem to matter to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, so the American people are going to be the ones left 
holding the bag, unable to do their jobs, unable to carry out their 
livelihood, and unable to afford the basics of life.
  The average American family is spending $11,000 a year more just to 
make ends meet since the beginning of this administration in January 
2021. Now, this administration wants to pile on.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stop us from 
doing our job in Article I to check an out-of-control executive branch 
and an out-of-control Biden administration that is bankrupting the 
American family and destroying the American Dream.
  Republicans in this body, in this Chamber, have been advancing bill 
after bill that would help the American people, secure the border, have 
a strong national defense, help them afford education, and stop the 
ridiculousness of these mandates driving up the cost of vehicles. They 
send them over to the Senate, and they die.
  The only question is whether Republicans are going to stand up and 
jam down the throats of recalcitrant Democrats and this administration 
changes to this administration's policies that are undermining the 
American people and the American Dream.
  That is the truth. That is the actual truth.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman who just 
yelled at us that his party is in charge.
  He is talking about jamming things down the throats of Democrats and 
the Senate and the White House, as if somehow that is a way to get 
anything done for the American people.
  He talks about standing up.
  What did they do when we were on the verge of shutting the government 
down? They didn't stand up. Democrats had to stand up and save the day.
  Mr. Speaker, I do agree with one thing the gentleman said when he 
came to the floor. He shouted: One thing--I want my Republican 
colleagues to tell me one thing. Tell me one thing that I can go back 
and campaign on and say that we did; one material, meaningful, 
significant thing that the Republican majority has done.
  The bottom line is, he is right. The Republican majority of this 
House has done nothing to help the American people.
  It is a disgrace. It is political malpractice.
  The bills that we are debating here today, they are making it sound 
like, oh, if we pass these bills, once the ink dries, this is the law. 
These bills are going nowhere. These bills are going nowhere.
  I mean, what they do is tell you about values. I mean, the 
gentlewoman from Indiana mentioned in her opening remarks that student 
loan forgiveness is not fair because not everybody goes to college.
  Think about that--not fair?
  By her logic, public high schools aren't fair, public middle schools 
aren't fair, public elementary schools aren't fair.
  My kids aren't in middle or high school anymore, but I am proud that 
my tax dollars pay for other people's kids to get an education. That is 
how it should work. It helps make us more competitive. It strengthens 
our country when our students are the best educated in the world. It is 
the right thing to do.
  The bottom line is that Republicans seem to think that education is 
just not a good idea, that somehow we don't benefit from a well-
educated workforce.
  They are wrong. They are wrong.
  Democrats have a different view. We believe education is important, 
and we ought to support it. We believe more Americans having a good 
education helps everyone. We believe more Americans with college 
degrees uplifts our whole economy, not just those who go to college.
  So if my colleagues oppose student loan forgiveness because it isn't 
fair--that is what they say--I guess they just want to get rid of our 
whole public education system. I know some of them do. I hear them bash 
public education every chance they get, but I think most people think 
that is nuts.
  So, again, we have an opportunity to do something, to do something 
meaningful to help people, and these are the bills we bring to the 
floor. I guess they are filler. I don't know, maybe they make good 
posts on social media for the Republican base, but this is a complete 
waste of time.
  So the gentleman from Texas was right when he said, name one thing, 
one thing that Republicans have done. The bottom line is he couldn't, 
and nobody came to help him out because my friends on the other side 
have done nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, if the 
gentleman is prepared to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills are so impactful that the demand to speak is 
so underwhelming that I am the only one left.
  Mr. Speaker, with just one week left before we finish our official 
business for this year, these are the three measures that House 
Republican leadership has decided that we should focus on:

[[Page H6127]]

  A bill to overcorrect a problem in a way that would hinder U.S. 
global research; a bill to limit consumer choice, promote pollution, 
and hurt America's economic leadership; and a bill that attacks the 
Biden administration for addressing the serious financial concerns of 
low- and middle-income student loan borrowers.
  That is it. That is it.
  Now they want to go home for the holidays instead of addressing--I 
don't know--anything that matters.
  I will repeat again, they have done nothing, nothing, nothing in this 
Congress that helps people. It almost feels like Groundhog Day every 
time we come to the floor.
  We have considered multiple bills to roll back environmental rules 
and protections, multiple bills that promote the far right's bizarre 
culture wars, multiple bills that would help Republicans' greedy 
corporate friends and billionaire donors, instead of everyday people. A 
rule is taken down one day, and we are trying to elect a new Speaker 
the next. We have votes on measures to destroy, deflect, and distract 
but not to fix any of the very real problems that our constituents 
face.
  We are on an extreme MAGA merry-go-round. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, 
I want to get off this ride, and so do the people I represent. They are 
sick and tired of this. As we have all year, House Democrats continue 
to extend the hand of partnership. We will try to find common ground so 
we can lower costs and grow the middle class.
  The American people deserve a Congress that can put people over 
politics and meet their urgent needs. They are not getting that with 
this Republican majority. As I said before, you guys are doing a lousy 
job, and it shows. The only good news is that I believe after the next 
election you will no longer be in the majority.
  I hear from Democrats, I hear from Independents, I hear from 
Republicans all the time about their disappointment with the failure of 
this Congress to address any of the real concerns that they have.
  Everything is a sound bite. Everything is a gotcha vote. Everything 
is an appeal to the most extreme rightwing of the rightwing.
  Enough. Enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my friends will reconsider their priorities and 
actually start focusing in on things that the American people care 
about.
  I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule, a ``no'' vote on the 
underlying bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us the opportunity to move legislation 
that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of Americans. 
This is not nothing.
  Whether it is the overreach of the bureaucratic state or protecting 
our colleges and universities from bad actors, the choice before us in 
this rule is clear: We must take action.
  H.R. 4468, the CARS Act, protects American consumers, protects their 
freedom of choice, and does not give China the upper hand in the energy 
economy of the future.
  We must let market forces work and American ingenuity lead the way, 
not pursue mandates and unrealistic green agendas that drive us off a 
fiscal cliff and pick winners and losers.
  H.R. 5933, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue 
Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act, or the DETERRENT Act, 
takes seriously our responsibility to carefully evaluate foreign 
partnerships, particularly with countries of concern.
  We must ensure our adversaries are not given a platform within our 
classrooms to work against the United States, our values, and our 
interests.
  H.J. Res. 88, the joint resolution nullifying President Biden's 
reckless income-driven repayment plans, will increase rather than 
decrease the cost of college. This Biden rule will effectively forgive 
nearly half of the student loan debt and cost taxpayers at least $138 
billion over the next 10 years. Therefore, it is the responsibility of 
Congress to reject this rule as we continue our work to address the 
cost of higher education in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House 
this week. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the 
previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 906 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       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 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178:

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of Alabama). The question is on 
ordering the previous question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 will be postponed.

                          ____________________