Tim Walberg

Mr. WALBERG

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

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know my good friend and colleague's concern is sincere about faculty involvement in reporting in institutions, of course, that know how to keep records of sports donors, boosters, and alumni who are contributing various things. I think this is even more important. My colleague argued that requiring researchers to disclose foreign gifts and contracts would be invasive and unnecessary. I first remind my colleague that this requirement applies to specific researchers involved in government contracts who are at specific high research institutions. These are faculty working in crucial and sensitive research, areas our adversaries have targeted time and time again. This is not just an abstract problem. Just in the last 2 years, prominent research faculty at Harvard, Stanford, the University of Maryland, and the University of Delaware were found to not have disclosed foreign funding from Chinese sources, just to name a few examples. Reporting in-kind support specifically for a researcher's grant is critical, but deterrent provisions also cover other ways our adversaries can influence faculty. Democrats also continue to falsely claim that the DETERRENT Act would require reporting for everyday activities like doughnuts or coffee. The DETERRENT Act holds faculty to the same standard for monetary gifts as Members of Congress. A gift of a $5,000 purse from a foreign source rightfully needs to be scrutinized and publicized. Regarding privacy concerns, I do want to point out that these individuals are often happy to voluntarily publish their own names, their email addresses, and their donors when it comes to their own published works. Many universities have open directories on their websites. However, the DETERRENT Act does have a commonsense privacy protection included. The American public deserves transparency, and I urge critics of the bill to ask why relationships, including those with our worst enemies and our adversaries, should continue to lie in the shadows. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues who have come to speak today on such an important matter regarding not just higher education but national security. International collaboration is not inherently bad, but foreign nations have been able to operate in the dark for far too long. When foreign adversaries give to universities, it is not out of the goodness of their hearts. It is because they want something in return. Sometimes that is extremely negative. Each dollar that is accepted comes with strings attached, and that can influence student behavior or gain access to research. The DETERRENT Act is a crucial step toward transparency and protecting American education and students from malicious foreign influence. The current system has allowed our Nation's students to become targets for our adversaries, and that is unacceptable. We must pass this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is essentially the same amendment that my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Scott, offered last Congress on the floor as well as this Congress during committee markup. Sadly, the same serious problems remain, I believe. Instead of taking the threats of foreign influence seriously, this amendment is insufficient to protect our students and institutions from our worst adversaries. The amendment, first, makes it easier for foreign sources to be undetected, doubling the threshold for contracts to $100,000 and allowing gifts under $250,000 over a 3-year span to be unreported. Bad actors will seek any possible way to avoid transparency about their attempts to harm America through their influence over American postsecondary education. A strict threshold is essential to stop that from happening. The annual thresholds in the DETERRENT Act are simple and align with other requirements in existing law such as in the CHIPS Act and the Presidential Memorandum on United States Government-Supported Research and Development National Security Policy. Shockingly, this amendment includes no differences for America's biggest enemies, countries of concern and entities of concern. In my Democratic colleagues' minds, it appears that gifts from Russia, China, and Iran are the exact same gifts as those from England. I remind everyone here that the DETERRENT Act uses a tailored list of countries and individuals pulled from existing law that have a proven track record of being security threats and actively working against the United States. The Democratic ANS also has terrible carve-outs that provide gaping loopholes for cunning adversaries. The amendment allows gifts and contracts to be rendered anonymous, with no foreign source identification, and also exempts all clinical trials. These loopholes will make it easier for foreign sources to conceal their relationships, rendering disclosures all but useless. Simple transparency is the best way to ensure partnerships are as good as institutions claim. Finally, the Democratic proposal ensures schools have no financial risk for failing to disclose foreign funds. Under this proposal, years of flouting section 117 simply allow schools to go right back to their same financial state before accepting the gift in the first place. It is time to take foreign influence seriously. I stand against this amendment. It is time we hold institutions accountable for accepting foreign donations and keeping them from the public. The bipartisan support we have for this bill shows the seriousness of this problem. This amendment shows that some Democrats are still willing to turn a blind eye to attempts by hostile regimes to influence students and faculty on our college campuses. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The DETERRENT Act conforms section 117 with other existing regulations, which is why the bill's definitions of countries of concern come from existing law. The four countries on the countries of concern list are rightfully in statute as unique threats to the United States. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran represent countries that are actively hostile to the U.S. and are serious security threats. The DETERRENT Act ensures that any relationship with these countries is extremely cautious and proactively transparent. In contrast, this amendment attempts to use the illegitimate International Criminal Court to determine what countries are threats to the United States. The people of the United States in majority do not support that. As President Trump has stated, the ICC has baselessly asserted jurisdiction over the United States--and our citizens agree-- and its allies like Israel and further abused its power by issuing frivolous arrest warrants. There is no reason to use the ICC to define what countries are actively seeking to harm the United States. We can do that. I oppose this amendment that targets Israel and hurts American interests, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, again, this amendment is designed, I believe, to target Israel at a time when it is desperately seeking to defend its citizens against terrorists. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, the DETERRENT Act ensures section 117 is aligned with existing statute. The four countries on the countries of concern list are rightfully in statute as unique threats to the United States. That is our concern. China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran represent countries that are actively hostile to the U.S. and are serious security threats. Endowment investments in companies controlled by our adversaries could result in dangerous support for our enemies. This is why the DETERRENT Act requires institutions to disclose any such investments of concern. It is important for our wealthiest institutions to be transparent with the public about this danger. In contrast, this amendment attempts to use the illegitimate International Criminal Court to determine what countries are threats to the United States and targets endowment investments into those threats. The ICC has baselessly asserted jurisdiction over the United States and its allies like Israel and further abused its power by issuing frivolous arrest warrants. There is no reason to use the ICC to define what countries are actively seeking to harm the United States and what endowment investments should be transparent. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment that targets Israel and hurts American interests.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the concern and the passion of my colleague from Michigan. I concur that I and sponsors and cosponsors of this bill believe in First Amendment liberties and freedom of expression. This bill is about specific concerns, not all of the countries of the world. I am not sure if my colleague was here during the debate to hear the actual statistics of the dollars that have been invested by malign actors, countries of concern, in this country that don't compare with any other that was in the list that my colleague read. Again, this amendment on this bill, outside of the specifics of the bill, is designed to attack Israel for daring to defend itself from terrorists, which they did. This amendment has no place in the bill. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, DOGE has been hard at work locating wasteful spending and improving the efficiency of the Federal Government, something that has been a priority for me during my time in Congress. For many years, I have worked in a bipartisan manner to highlight and target government waste, fraud, and abuse. Over 4 years ago, my legislation, the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act, passed the House and became law. This bipartisan legislation required the Office of Management and Budget to publish an online inventory of each agency's Federal programs to streamline duplicative programs and prevent wasteful spending on ineffective programs. Last year, the OMB officially launched the Federal Program Inventory, representing a vital first step in increasing transparency and providing us with the tools necessary to eliminate government waste. Along with OMB Director and DOGE, I remain committed to ensuring that taxpayers know how the government is spending their hard-earned money.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. Mr. Chairman, in November, the American people delivered a clear and resolute mandate to this Congress: Rein in out-of-control spending. For too long, bureaucrats in Washington recklessly spent Americans' hard-earned tax dollars and drove up our national debt to nearly catastrophic levels, hurting all Americans, especially the most vulnerable. For example, the Biden-Harris administration attempted to spend as much as $1 trillion through his illegal and irresponsible student loan bailouts. Virtually nothing was done to control the cost of Federal student loan programs, meaning students will be able to take on even more in student loan debt and drive up the burden on all Americans, even those who never went to college or received a degree. Why should we continue to spend Americans' tax dollars on a system that is clearly not working? Something must change, and Americans are sick and tired of this wasteful spending. With Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and White House, we have a real opportunity to cut through the waste, fraud, abuse, and falsehoods in Washington. Reconciliation provides us with a chance to address Washington's spending problem. Under the new Trump administration, we can cut spending, deliver on the mandate given to us by the American people, and put more money back in Americans' pockets. As I begin to yield back, I will await the false report on Medicaid in Michigan.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, the Fix Our Forests Act. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I express my sincere condolences to the families who have lost loved ones, homes, and history in the tragic fires in southern California. Our hearts break for them, and our prayers continue to be with them. Today, we have an opportunity to help mitigate future forest fires and protect not only homes and communities but critical wildlife habitat. Proper forest management can, in fact, help prevent forest fires. If we follow the science, as this legislation does, we can identify the top areas of concern and take action to address those firesheds. This bipartisan legislation will empower States and local, Tribal, and private partners to do critical wildfire prevention activities necessary to prevent the tragic fires we have just seen recently and in recent years. I also note that the legislation does not waive a single environmental law. Mr. Speaker, I am a conservationist. Coming from the Great Lakes, the State of Michigan, I know the importance of clean air and clean water. What this bill does is streamline fragmented Federal programs and makes the existing tools more flexible and efficient. By passing this legislation, we can help protect millions of acres from the threat of wildfires, save lives and livelihoods and history, and protect wildlife habitat for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for his leadership on this critical legislation, and I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. WALBERG

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

Mr. WALBERG

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

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 28) to amend the Education Amendments of 1972 to provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of such Act in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 28.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025, authored by Representative Greg Steube. This bill is about a promise. More than 50 years ago, this country made a promise to women and girls across America. That promise, Title IX, said women and girls would have equal opportunities, both in the classroom and in athletics. For years, America has kept her promise. Prior to Title IX, only 300,000 women and girls participated in high school and college sports. By the 40th anniversary of Title IX's passage, the number was up to 3 million, and the numbers have continued to climb and grow ever since. Today, female participation in sports has increased over 1,000 percent at the high school level and over 600 percent at the college level since Title IX went into effect. Unfortunately, these wins for women and girls ushered in by the promise of Title IX have been under attack. The Biden-Harris administration pushed a radical rewrite of Title IX that would eliminate policies enacted by 26 States to protect equal athletic opportunities for women and girls. Even with last week's court order striking down the regulation and the Trump administration poised to undo the harm caused by it, nearly half of the States have no protections in place for female athletes. Mr. Speaker, kicking girls off sports teams to make way for biological males takes opportunities away from these girls. This means fewer college scholarships and fewer opportunities for girls. It also makes them second-class citizens in their own sports and puts their safety at risk. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 offers a new promise to America's women and girls. It will strengthen Title IX's protections for women, ensure a level playing field for female athletes, and protect the law from current and future radical regulatory schemes. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I would call attention to the fact that, in this bill, we offer no requirement for any type of invasive checks on women or men. They simply have to go to the birth certificate. That will give the answer. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Rulli), a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. WALBERG. Certainly. That bill doesn't deal with this at all. It deals with men in sports.