Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to "Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles".

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

Last night, the Committee on Rules met and produced a rule providing for consideration of five pieces of legislation.

H.J. Res. 60 and H.J. Res. 78 are both considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Additionally, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 are all considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule tolls the date counts regarding resolution of inquiry until September 30, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this, I will start by saying on the Committee on Rules we tend to get to know each other pretty well in significant late-night engagement in debate. The ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, has had an unfortunate loss that words cannot possibly convey as a dad what he and his wife are going through with the loss of his daughter, Molly.

I say from this side of the aisle, I know speaking for the entire Committee on Rules irrespective of party affiliation, how much Jim, his wife, and his son are in our prayers after losing their daughter and sister, Molly, to cancer.

As a cancer survivor, I have seen firsthand the horrors of the disease. I told my Committee on Rules colleagues last night in committee, in my time in treatment at MD Anderson, going through chemo seemed trivial to me compared to watching the parents at MD Anderson who were watching their children go through treatment.

Molly went to Heaven last week while visiting a friend in Italy, and I think I speak for everybody in this body when we offer our deepest condolences to Jim and to his entire family and to our colleagues who were so close with and knew Molly, who, by the way, from memory I believe worked for Jamie Raskin as an intern, and had her own engagements in public service.

When I heard of her passing, I did a little googling about her life, her love for sports and Boston sports, her love of her dad, and how proud she was of her dad.

While, just on occasion, Jim and I might have disagreed here on the House floor--it has been known to happen--we are all united in offering our condolences and prayers for Jim's family, and God bless Molly and his entire family.

Mr. Speaker, on the legislation that is before us, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, no doubt, about to launch into how we have had an ineffective first 100 days and Congress is not doing anything.

Let me put in perspective for the American people what we are focusing on.

We are focusing on undoing the damage of the last 4 years of the Biden administration. The President is doing that on a daily basis in the White House today, and then we in Congress are using the powers that we have before us in an obvious narrow majority and in a narrow majority in the Senate, where you have to get things through the Senate with 60 votes. We

are using the tools in front of us to try to limit and minimize the damage caused by the previous administration and, frankly, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today.

Notably, we are talking about in this situation what we have done so far. We have passed legislation to secure our elections through H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, to guarantee that only American citizens vote in American elections; to hold rogue judges accountable for issuing nationwide injunctions and trying to change the process.

Mr. Speaker, that is not partisan. Justice Elena Kagan talked about the need for injunction relief. The Democratic Solicitor General under the previous administration talked about the need for injunction reform. We offered legislation that would change and reform injunctions. We passed that before Easter so that a single judge won't be legislating and making national policy by granting temporary restraining orders and injunctions.

We made changes on border policy with the Laken Riley Act, which is extremely important; and legislation to combat the flow of fentanyl.

Importantly, what we have been trying to do is undo the damage on the border.

Mr. Speaker, keep in mind what has happened now under the first 100 days. In just 100 days, southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent year over year.

Mr. Speaker, consider that for a second. They decreased by 94 percent. What changed? Have we passed a massive law? Have we enacted the law that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last year was necessary, this bipartisan bill which, by the way, would have codified all the bad policies under the Biden administration?

No. The only thing that changed was a White House willing to enforce the law. That is literally it, and now there is a 94 percent reduction in apprehensions at the border.

Keep in mind that we are now at apprehension levels of somewhere around 100 to 200 a day, 3,000 to 6,000 a month. We had 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 apprehensions per day under the Biden administration.

The President has restored common sense by ending DEI in the military and working to keep men from competing in women's sports, affirming that there are two genders. These are common sense. I wouldn't think we would have to spend time on the floor of the House of Representatives doing those things or having the President do it by executive order, but here we are.

The President has unlocked America's energy potential, or at least taken a giant step to doing so, by reopening 625 million acres for drilling, withdrawing from the disastrous Paris climate agreement, and approving new LNG projects.

Mr. Speaker, here before us today, we have what we call CRAs, under the Congressional Review Act. The purpose of these is to undo burdensome Biden regulations. This is our ability and our prerogative to hold the Biden administration accountable, and that doesn't stop just because the Democrats lost an election and we have a Republican in the White House. We have a duty to undo some of that damage.

Under these bills, we would repeal California's advanced clean trucks waiver, which currently would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks. It would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks.

These bills would repeal the California advanced clean cars waiver allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; put an end to California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty, on-road engines; nullify a rule by the National Park Service that would infringe on the employment of a recreational area, contravening the agency's own mandate when it was created; and, finally, one that would end an Endangered Species Act designation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would threaten water resources and other conservation efforts.

Mr. Speaker, these things matter to the average American. My colleagues are going to say that this is small ball, and it doesn't matter.

Every one of these regulations add up to interference with the enjoyment of life by the American people, drive up the price of the goods and services for the average hardworking American family, make vehicles more expensive, make our lives more costly. Then people wonder why they are suffering from inflation and suffering from the inability to afford to live in the modern world.

This Congress is taking steps to undo that damage, working with the White House to restore the ability of the average American family to live and afford the basic necessities of life, including vehicles and the right to be able to choose the vehicle of their choice in an open market.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to say that we are infringing on California. Let's remember that California gets treated specially and uniquely and that that then has a domino effect through the rest of the country. That is unique to California based on past precedent involving Los Angeles smog and other things where that is causing a direct impact on other States across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I miss getting that admonition. It was a pretty regular occurrence in my various floor speeches.

With respect to the resolutions of inquiry, let me put out there that it is my strong preference, as I have said multiple times on the floor of the House, that we come up with a system that allows the body to work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive branch, no matter who is in power.

I introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act to try to restrict Presidential power under the Trump administration the first time and had trouble getting it moved during the Biden administration. I am not really even pointing fingers. I am acknowledging the politics. I had some Democratic colleagues and friends of mine that would say: I like that idea, but I don't know if right now is the time. Okay, but let's have the conversation.

Let's take ROIs, what we call resolutions of inquiry, a tool in which we can specifically go ask for specific information. We have engaged in that effort. I certainly have. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, ROIs, these resolutions of inquiry, were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. That is, of course, the ``you did it, so we will do it'' argument--not particularly satisfying if you want to have an open body.

I think the question would be: What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have? What should the rule be? If we want resolutions of inquiry to just be allowed in perpetuity, then maybe we need to come up with a way to try to guarantee that and do that, but that is not what happens. We have turned them off. Both sides have turned them off.

I would also add, for example, for the filibuster rule in the Senate, are we going to abide by the 60-vote threshold in the Senate as a Congress? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the filibuster rule for judges and succeeded, and now, we have a 51- vote threshold for judges.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the rule for legislation, and but for Kyrsten Sinema and but for Joe Manchin, they would have done so. Then, the Senate would have been operating by a 51-vote threshold for legislation.

Maybe that is good or bad, but maybe we should decide the rules we want to operate under and then apply them to both sides. Right now, we are operating under a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

I think that is something maybe we ought to put to a vote right here in this body, in the House, and say: Do we believe that the United States Senate should operate under a 60-vote threshold? Because if you go watch the Twitter feed of Kyrsten Sinema, she is pretty explicit about what she is watching and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate who now suddenly have newfound love and respect for the 60-vote threshold.

My point being, if we are going to change the body institutionally, then let's have a real conversation about changing the body institutionally.

Closed rules, I get it. In the majority, we are sitting here, and we have more closed rules. Do we want open rules? Then what will happen when the Democrats are in charge? Do you want resolutions of inquiry? What do we do to bind the hands of a future House on those points if not us agreeing to respect each other's ability to do that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple quick points on the resolutions of inquiry. I won't waste a whole lot more time on it.

The fact is, one, we have extended this through September 30 only at our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through reconciliation.

Two, my colleagues want to blame COVID. Committees were still in full operation. The fact of the matter is my colleagues didn't want to answer questions that we were asking about the border because they were unanswerable. The border was wide open. Americans were getting killed. Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, Americans like Laken Riley, Americans like Rachel Morin, and Americans like Kayla Hamilton. I can keep going down the list of dead Americans at the hands of the foolish, incompetent, and dangerous policies of the Biden administration that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to answer. That is the simple truth. When we wanted to get data about the border, they didn't want to answer it. It wasn't because of COVID.

Mr. Speaker, I note with respect to California that California's mandates effectively take away America's ability to buy new gas cars. As I mentioned earlier, California gets some special treatment. It is the only State allowed to seek waivers for its own vehicle policies due to a provision in the Clean Air Act crafted to allow California to address Los Angeles area smog, and so they have an outside impact on our ability to get affordable vehicles, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which would be unnecessarily impacted by where California wants to go and which we want to try to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I also note that California, as KTLA reported in a January 30 article, continues to lose more people than come into other States because of the tragic and unfortunate policies of the State of California.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will note that neither the GAO nor the Senate Parliamentarian get a vote. It is sort of a shocking news revelation I recognize, but they don't get a vote. We do. The Senate does. We can decide what we think ought to apply.

Number two, if my colleagues want to talk about the high price of vehicles, how about the extent to which the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

According to the latest data from Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric vehicles is $55,273, 3.7 percent higher than last year. For context, the median household income for the gentlewoman's district is $62,000.

The fact of the matter is, EVs are expensive. EVs are driving up the price of vehicles. The mandate is taking the power out of the hands of the American people to decide, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which allow individuals to have more efficient vehicles while being able to travel long distances, as I know the gentlewoman has constituents who need to do so in New Mexico as we need to do in west Texas and throughout the State of Texas.

Additionally, the trucks that are required under California's unrealistic mandates cost two to three times more than a new, safer, and more reliable diesel truck. The fact is, we are driving up the price of goods and services. We are making it more expensive for the American people to live. We are making it almost impossible for people to fix their vehicles and be able to afford their vehicles with every new thing we add to it to make it more complex in the name of safety or the environment.

The fact is, we can't be blind to those realities. That is exactly what is happening. That is why the American people are suffering from the inability to afford to live in this country.

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

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

I am always amazed when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that these EVs require power. Somehow they get charged from the magic fairy dust of the magic energy tree? I mean, what are we talking about here?

How do you power up an electric vehicle? It is done by burning coal, burning gas, or the nuclear plants that we are not actually permitting or building in the United States, while China builds two coal-fired plants virtually every week. We are building none. Well, good for us.

The vast majority of the world is producing power with coal and natural gas, and it is growing exponentially. Meanwhile, we are crushing our grid, the reliability of American power, making it more expensive for the average American and doing really nothing about worldwide CO2 production. That is the truth. China and India are pumping it out.

Meanwhile, my colleagues love to ignore the slave labor in China to produce the batteries that they drive around in their EVs while they pat themselves on the back and go to cocktail parties talking about how fantastic it is that they drive their EVs and how enlightened they are.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three articles: `` `Like slave and master': DRC miners toil for 30p an hour to fuel electric cars'' in the Guardian; ``EV makers' use of Chinese suppliers raises concerns about forced labor''; ``U.S. says Chinese lithium-ion batteries are made with child labour as trade war spills into EVs.''

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to parade around EV mandates like they are somehow going to magically create power out of thin air, ignoring the fact we are empowering China, ignoring the fact we are empowering Chinese child laborers while we destroy the cost of living for the average American family, take away choice, take away the ability of an American citizen to be able to go out into the market and buy a hybrid vehicle or another vehicle that they can use to travel long distances, do their job, whether they are a plumber, an electrician, or carrying goods and services in a truck, and then they wonder why the cost of goods and services go up. Then they want to blame tariffs when we are 90 days in, and we had massive and rampant inflation under the Biden administration as a direct consequence of the regulatory policies and the failed policies of the previous administration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that with respect to wind energy, yes, Texas is one of the leaders in wind energy. I worked for Governor Perry when the Governor was embracing wind power, and the fact of the matter is, as it has become a larger percentage of the grid, the reliability of Texas' grid has suffered, and now the consequences of having embraced wind as a significant portion of the grid are now coming to roost.

We are now having to deal with what happens when these need to be shelved. Where do they go? They fill landfills. How much oil and gas goes into the production of said windmills? How do you get the power from the wind farms in west Texas to the various facilities where we are making power? How reliable is it during ice storms or during the heat of the summer? When you have a cloudy, windless day, how are you getting power? Who is making the parts for the solar panels? What happens to the solar panels in the environment when you are finished with the solar farm?

All of these questions get brushed aside in a quest to say that we can have magical ``green, clean energy,'' when we have clean-burning natural gas in Texas and throughout this country that is producing a significant amount of economic benefit and power for our country and has done more to drive down CO2 production and for clean air than virtually any other innovation we have had over the last century.

Yet, we are impeding the ability to have more reliable power by virtue of mandates. That is the whole point of the problem with the Inflation Reduction Act. That is the whole point of the problem with the rules and the rulemaking done by the Biden administration that we are trying to reverse under these CRAs, so that we can make things more affordable for the American people. That is it. We are trying to help the average Texan, the average New Mexican, the average American be able to afford to live, trying to be able to figure out how to get power, get a vehicle that they can afford to be able to carry out their job. That is it.

On the issue of healthcare, the issue was raised, as is often the case by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to try to scare the American people that somehow raising questions about the inefficiency, the ineffectiveness, the waste, the fraud of a government healthcare solution, that somehow that is taking away benefits.

When you have a trillion dollars of improper payments, when you have the State of California openly and publicly stating that they are gaming the Medicaid system and the provider tax and the Federal match rate to provide funds to illegal aliens and for their general budget to game the system at what best can be called money laundering, as was editorialized in The Wall Street Journal last week. When that is what is happening, when you have people on Medicaid who are getting a higher subsidy than people on Medicare, who have paid into it their entire lives, into the tax on Medicare; when you have people who are able- bodied who are getting a higher subsidy than the vulnerable population for whom Medicaid was originally created, then someone explain to me why we don't have a duty to fix that.

That is what we are putting forward, to try to deliver healthcare that would actually have a doctor and a patient relationship rather than a corporate overlord or government bureaucrat telling you what your healthcare is. That is the system that has been created. That is the system that we are living with now under expanded ObamaCare. That is what that is, expanded ObamaCare. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about the expansion of that population into the able-bodied who could be and should be working at a higher rate of return by the Federal Government than is going to the vulnerable population, while California games the system to give money to illegal aliens. That is expressly and openly being acknowledged by California leadership.

They don't want to have those conversations. They don't want to talk about how you manage that problem, how you get more people to be able to have affordable care instead of what they currently have, which is a broken system that insurance companies run, forcing individuals onto an exchange so they can get like my constituent who passed away last year from cancer, who wanted to go to M.D. Anderson and could not go because she was on an

ObamaCare plan and couldn't go to the best cancer hospital in the world because she was covered under ObamaCare.

The failure of our healthcare system cannot be overstated. Both parties need to step to the table to get government out of the way and to allow doctors and patients to be able to go get healthcare from a provider of their choice--not some insurance bureaucrat or government bureaucrat--in order to deliver outcomes that the American people want us to deliver.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, number one, Congress has an important role to play in repealing the Biden-Harris administration's EV mandates and other rules that are damaging the lives of the American people.

When the administration transmits an action to the House and the Senate for review under the CRA, then it is Members of Congress, not the GAO and not the Parliamentarian, who decide whether and how we proceed under the CRA.

The fact here is California mandates, which is what we are dealing with here in several of these Congressional Review Act actions, effectively take away Americans' ability to buy new gas cars, a hybrid vehicle, or the vehicle of their choice. It raises their vehicle and transportation costs.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the former Speaker of the House, came down and described that somehow we are not factoring in the price of clean air. With the vehicles that we are producing today, the fact is we have the cleanest air we have ever had.

There is no problem with having EVs. It is the mandates that are the problem. It is mandating the American people must convert that is the problem. In fact, worldwide, the extent to which coal-fired plants in China, coal-fired plants in India, and other countries around the world are producing CO2 and other particulate matter that is bad for the air is rising.

Why would we undermine our own economic well-being to pursue a negligible impact on the overall global emissions, while driving up the price of goods and services for the average American family? They have to live for today. They have to pay their bills today.

All the subsidies in the world aren't making those things economically viable for them. Whether you are talking about wind farms or EVs without the mandates, what is clear is the American people aren't buying these things because they are still not able to function and carry out their livelihoods effectively under the mandates.

Higher costs and fewer choices for consumers hit low-income and disadvantaged communities the hardest. There is a reason why, when I drive around Austin, Texas, I see it is the rich folk driving around in their Teslas. It is the rich folk who are getting their EV tax credits. I see it. They are not in east Austin. They are out in the rich parts of Austin.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that is an accident? Do you think the hardworking plumber I represent in San Marcos, Texas, in New Braunfels, Texas, or any other part of Texas is going to go out and get a battery- powered truck to drive across 10 counties to carry out his job or his livelihood? As I said before, the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

Mandates disrupt the free market. We have talked about the impact these mandates can have on the reliability of our power grid.

Is the Nation's grid even up to the mandates we talk about? No, it is not because then there will be more mandates on what the grid has to look like. Suddenly, we are Spain. Suddenly, we are wondering why the grids are failing.

Importantly, California's move empowers China, which dominates the EV market and uses slave labor and coal-powered plants to produce EV batteries. That is just the truth.

Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of the world's electric vehicle batteries are manufactured in China. China owns 80 percent of the industrial cobalt mines in the Congo and controls 15 of 19 of the primary cobalt mines in the Congo. These mines are operated by trafficked child slaves. Since when do we not care about that?

The idea that California can do this unilaterally is preposterous. They are the only State allowed to seek waivers under a unique policy. They should not be able to determine policy for the State of Texas or any other place.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendmentto H. Res. 354 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation

measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program, 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 Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 2753.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Representative Roy for acknowledging the tremendous loss that Jim McGovern and his wife, Lisa, suffered this weekend when their daughter, Molly, was taken by cancer, a disease both of us have battled, as well.

With the Speaker's indulgence, I will read a few sentences from the McGoverns' own statement because I think this captured a lot of who Molly was:

``Molly radiated pure joy. She lit up every room with her beaming smile--full of laughter, endless warmth, and a sharp wit that could disarm you in an instant. She was unbelievably funny, fiercely loyal, and wise beyond her years. Molly had a rare gift: She made everyone feel special because she genuinely believed everyone was special. She treated people with compassion and kindness--always standing up for the underdog, and making fast friends wherever she went.''

Molly was deeply loved by Jim and Lisa, and because of that love, Molly was also loved by many of her colleagues in this House. She grew up here in Capitol Hill with other children of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have been exchanging and I have been watching these beautiful pictures of Molly growing up with those kids from when she was young to just last August at the convention.

Lisa McGovern dedicated herself to helping families deal with cancer at Prevent Cancer Foundation. Lisa knows directly what it is like to see that terrible disease impact a young and promising life and how it, therefore, impacts the entire family.

Jim has one of the biggest hearts I know. He stands up on this floor every week to ask us to end hunger now because he deeply feels the pains of hunger that too many young children in America suffer from.

Given that huge heart, my colleagues can only imagine the love he poured into Molly. We don't even have to imagine it. We all saw the love he poured into Molly. He worried about her as she sought to live a normal life, studying in Australia and traveling, but he always said ``yes'' and never missed being by her side for key appointments and scans.

We cry for the things we love, and love always comes with pain. With a love as profound and deep as what Molly had, we know the McGoverns' pain will be immeasurable.

To Lisa, Jim, and their son, Patrick, please know that your colleagues on this House floor on both sides of the aisle are in pain with you. Our tears are flowing with yours, and your congressional family stands with you in prayer and support.

Now, standing in Jim's place, I will turn to the business before us.

Representative Roy and I agree on how we opened this, but not on much more this morning because we see a different view on this 100th day that is marking Trump's service in office, 100 days of chaos, corruption, and economic sabotage. After these 100 days, House Republicans are wasting time on cynical Congressional Review Act resolutions instead of addressing the economic and constitutional crisis facing American families.

One hundred days of economic pain, as Trump's on-again, off-again temper tantrum of tariffs tank the dollar, drive up prices, destroy the markets, and threaten a recession.

One hundred days of chaos in the White House, where Secretary Hegseth texts war plans to journalists, and the administration belittles allies while embracing dictators like Putin.

One hundred days of corruption, as billionaires like Musk and DOGE take Americans' personal Social Security data and fired the employees we need to process those Social Security checks. They fired the auditors and inspectors so no one is there to sound the alarm when Musk steers contracts to his own companies. Talk about self-dealing.

One hundred days of courtroom drama, with courts--district, appellate, and even the Supreme Court--saying Trump's actions are likely illegal, unconstitutional, and must be paused to avoid irreparable harm to the American people.

While Trump defies the law and damages our economy, what are House Republicans doing? This week and into the next couple, Republicans are plotting to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans to fund tax cuts for 759 billionaires. Republicans will sacrifice healthcare for 72 million children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to give tax cuts to the 759 richest people in America.

When they destroy Medicaid, they destroy rural hospitals, and they destroy healthcare centers that everyone in the community uses, not just those on Medicaid.

Trump and Republicans want to give tax cuts to the biggest corporations, as well, so they have to cut funding from low-income college students trying to get ahead and steal food from the mouths of hungry children, and that hurts our farmers and ranchers, too. These are the hungry children that Ranking Member McGovern fights for every day.

Millions of Americans will suffer so the billionaires and the biggest corporations can get more--more power, more money, more control, and more influence in Washington, D.C.

Americans are tired of how the system is rigged against working- and middle-class families. They know the rich are winning and regular Americans don't seem to have a chance.

The Republican budget ends their reconciliation bill. Their tax cuts are going to make sure the rich always win.

Now, Trump's approval ratings are the lowest of any President in the last 80 years. In the latest poll released today, Americans give him F's. He is getting F's on the economy. He is getting F's all over the place.

Americans disapprove of Trump because he is destroying our economy, and he is betraying his promise to lower costs from day one.

Americans are demanding we put an end to Trump's tyranny. Republican voters are showing up at the few townhalls that Republicans are brave enough to have, and they are yelling at their Representatives. They are saying: Do something.

While Americans want us to have the courage to stand up to Trump, House Republicans are doing the opposite.

Hidden in the rule we are debating today is a provision that will cover up Secretary Hegseth's texting of classified war plans. Republicans won't even let Democrats ask for information about what is happening at the Department of Defense--no courage, just capitulation.

Today, instead of helping lower costs for working families, Republicans are pushing partisan bills to overturn environmental laws that protect our air and water. It is ridiculous.

Costs are going up, markets are tanked, court orders are being ignored, and we are talking about a rule that we will hear about later today that we are going to spend all of this time on the floor of this House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate. We are wasting the precious time that we have on this House floor to do something.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, a resolution of inquiry--Congress wants to know. Give us some answers.

It is not that big of a deal, except that, right now, I think they just don't want to have to vote. They don't want to have to vote on Signalgate. They don't want to have to actually take up an issue that they know is controversial, and they don't have a reason to present to the American people of why to shut this inquiry down.

I will acknowledge that we also had resolutions of inquiry, and there was a reason that we explained to the world: There was a pandemic going on. People were dying. The United States Government was in an emergency, and we were trying to save lives. We were trying to make sure that people were safe, not just here but in every single State. In New Mexico, it was devastating. We were trying to deal with this worldwide pandemic.

They have not offered any explanation for shutting down resolutions of inquiry at this time. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why? Last night, we had an amendment to actually remove this, and we said: Why? Just explain to us why. They could not answer.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee were set to take up these inquiries about the Secretary of Defense using unclassified Signal chats to share sensitive information about military strikes with his family, his personal lawyer, and a journalist.

They don't want to vote on Signalgate, so they are rigging the rules to block us. They are hoping maybe this issue will pass over. Maybe we will forget about this lapse of judgment, this utter failure, this TV personality who, I guess, still wants everybody to know what he is doing, but when you are Secretary of Defense, you are not supposed to be letting everybody know what we are doing and putting our servicemembers at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member and top Democrat on our Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned the fact about a vehicle's expense. Now, let's recognize that used car prices have gone up for the first time in 30 months not because of what California has done but because of Trump's tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Used car prices just rose for the first time in 30 months. Here's why and what it could mean for consumers in 2025.''

Mr. Speaker, if they wanted to actually address the rising costs of cars, maybe they would be willing to address the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true in New Mexico, we have all that beautiful land. We have our ranchers. We have our farms. We have those mountains. We love our trucks, but the problem is, Trump's tariffs are making all of that more expensive.

He is raising the cost of trucks. Remember, there was like a $20,000 hike after one of his first attempts at tariffs before he started flip- flopping. We never know where he is at, right?

His tariffs are raising the costs of housing. In New Mexico, the firing of Federal employees and the domino effects of the economic uncertainty because of his tariffs are making jobs harder to find.

Mr. Speaker, Trump promised to lower prices on day one. Instead, his tariffs are crashing our economy, making those trucks more expensive and houses more expensive. People are out of work. Retirement accounts are destroyed.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and impose tariffs. It is Congress' duty to review whether what he is doing is accurate or not. Even though it is our review, this is another area where Republicans don't want to have the debate on this floor. They are hiding behind these things they stick in these rules.

They actually thought they stopped time. Republicans passed a rule that stops time for the purposes of voting

on whether or not we should have these tariffs. They actually passed a rule that said this: ``Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment last night. I offered an amendment last time we met in rules. We will keep offering amendments to say you can't stop time. If you believe in these tariffs, be willing to debate them, to stand up on this floor and say we think the tariffs are good, we think the tariffs are bad. Make Trump defend those tariffs.

Why is he doing this to us? Why is he creating this disaster? This is a disaster of Trump's own creation. We are seeking four Republicans to join us to stop this. They already have some Republicans over on the Senate side. We have some that might be moving here. Let's stop this craziness of the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker emerita.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asks where would we get this electricity. In New Mexico as well as in Texas, we have amazing wind power and amazing solar power. There are many ways of generating electricity. The problem is that with a policy of ``drill, baby, drill,'' they don't want to look at all of the opportunities, even though Americans know that looking at energy independence means looking at all of the beautiful ways in which we can generate power in the United States.

However, a more important question that is before us is: What is happening with Medicaid and SNAP? Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which will prevent the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans are continuing full-speed ahead with their disastrous plan to cut the social safety net and blow up the deficit to give billionaires tax cuts. It is shameful. It is wrong. Under their plan, they will have to cut $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion in food assistance just to make the math work.

Mr. Speaker, what is worse is they continue to argue they are not doing that, but the math doesn't lie. They can't reach the levels of billionaire tax cuts they want without completely

gutting vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP, programs that the most vulnerable in our country rely on.

Republicans claim they won't make these cuts, so today I will give them a chance to put their money where their mouth is and vote to ensure those devastating cuts can't move forward in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this issue of the Clean Air Act and the fact that Republicans often say they believe in States' rights, but when a State like California actually chooses a policy they don't like, they throw that principle out the window.

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it gave States that had standards before 1966 the right to apply for a waiver. Congress decided that. For 50 years, California has used that waiver to clean up its air. It is not just California. Other States have chosen to adopt these standards, too.

Across America, we can breathe cleaner air. That is why our children can go out and play in the park and can run around. They don't have to stay indoors like they have to in Beijing or New Delhi or other countries that are polluted from the cars that clog their cities.

Clean air isn't just about the environment. We heard the Speaker Emerita talking about the cost, the cost to the children, but it is also about economic prosperity. When people breathe clean air, they miss fewer work and school days, companies are more productive, kids learn more, families save on healthcare costs because fewer people go to the hospital for asthma and heart disease.

It doesn't stop there. To meet California's emission standards, carmakers have built more fuel-efficient vehicles. That means we are saving money at the pump. Republicans love to talk about energy dominance, but for them, as I noted, it is just ``drill, baby, drill.'' Improving fuel efficiency is cheaper, smarter, and better for the environment and economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stop this political theater and focus on the real issues that matter to the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, after 100 days of Trump, the verdict is clear: We are living through a campaign of economic chaos, constitutional contempt, and corporate greed. The American people see what is happening, and they are not fooled by the chaos. They are not happy with the chaos. They are watching this body to see who will fight for them and who will fold to Trump.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. This administration isn't governing. It is looting. Trump's cronies are lighting the house on fire so their billionaire friends can sell the ashes for profit.

With this issue of cutting Medicaid and addressing healthcare, yes, our healthcare system is not working. We need to address some issues in Medicaid. Let's be honest. The CMS itself said that there is less than 1 percent of fraud in the system. It is an incredibly lean system. It pays out less than any other system.

Still, even with it as it is, 40 percent of pregnant women in the country rely on Medicaid so they can give birth to healthy babies. They would strip that away from those women. It is even higher in rural areas, and those hospitals in the rural areas rely on that.

With regards to prices, Trump's tariffs are raising prices. At the same time that prices are going up, they are slashing food assistance. At a food bank I went to last week, they have more people showing up and less food because Trump literally stopped the trucks from delivering the food that was in the trucks. How cruel is that?

They are wrecking our national parks, not out of necessity but to fund tax cuts for 759 of the richest people in America. They are bleeding rural hospitals, stripping students of opportunity, and polluting our air, all to line the pockets of the ultrarich.

This isn't policy. It is plunder. House Republicans won't stop it. I say we stop it by voting against this rule. Let's defeat this rule today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the GENIUS Act and the urgent need to strengthen this bill before the Senate votes on it later this week. The GENIUS Act would create a framework for bringing stablecoins deeper into the U.S. financial system.

For those who are unfamiliar with stablecoins, they are a type of cryptocurrency whose value is pegged to the value of another asset like the U.S. dollar. A stablecoin is similar to a bank deposit only without the guarantees of a bank behind it. A stablecoin is supposed to maintain a stable value, so a holder can redeem it to get their cash back on demand, and they can make payments with it, at least in theory.

Democrats want to work with Republicans to advance a stablecoin bill that will make stablecoins safer to use and curb the worst abuses of the industry. There are five areas that need revision.

First, a bill must include basic rules so government officials can't use stablecoin ventures to line their own pockets and so that foreign governments and giant corporations cannot use stablecoins to pay bribes to the President of the United States.

Second, the bill must prevent Big Tech and other commercial firms from issuing stablecoins, thereby preserving America's historical separation between banking and commerce.

Third, the bill must include basic consumer protections--the same as for any other financial transaction.

Fourth, the bill must safeguard national security, providing the same guardrails as other payment systems, to make sure that we are not turbocharging the financing of drug traffickers, terrorists, adversaries like North Korea, and crypto scammers.

And, fifth, the bill must have sufficient safeguards so that a stablecoin meltdown won't trigger an economywide financial meltdown.

With adequate changes in those five areas, Democrats can support the GENIUS Act.

When the GENIUS Act was before the Banking Committee in March, Senate Democrats worked hard to improve the bill. Together, Democrats introduced nearly 70 amendments. We called for votes on more than two dozen of them. Every single Democrat voted for every single amendment, and every single Republican voted no. When the bill advanced out of the committee, Democrats made clear they needed to see real changes in the bill before they could vote for it down here on the floor of the Senate.

The version that will be voted on by the full Senate as early as this Thursday makes only minor changes, leaving fundamental problems with the bill. I know that the Republican majority intends to force this vote with no real changes. That would be a mistake. If the majority wants to establish a durable legal framework for digital assets rather than just try to score political points, they will take these concerns seriously and agree to improve the bill.

Since the committee vote, President Trump's aggressive efforts to profit from stablecoins and the obvious opportunities from bribery and other influence peddling have demonstrated why it is vital that we make meaningful, substantive reforms to the bill. So let's talk for just a minute about how we got here.

During his first term, Donald Trump was extremely critical of crypto, describing crypto as ``highly volatile and based on thin air''--thin air--and highlighting that it can ``facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity.''

When he ran for office in 2024, however, the crypto industry poured enormous sums of money into Donald Trump's election, and after he was elected, crypto leaders contributed another $18 million to his inauguration. It was no surprise when Trump reversed his position and began to boost the industry, but it has been shocking to see Donald Trump move at breakneck speed to use his position as President to reap billions of dollars for himself personally and for his family.

The biggest corruption scandal in modern history is unfolding right now, and no one in here is paying attention to it. Trump has created the opportunity to trade Presidential favors like tariff exemptions, pardons, and government appointments for crypto purchases that will directly benefit himself and his family, and no one needs to speculate on what might happen. All of this is happening in full view of the public. Over his first 100 days, the President has enabled corruption on such an unprecedented scale it would truly make a two-bit dictator blush.

Most people are aware that the meme coin Trump launched ahead of his inauguration was sagging in value recently, so his recent announcement that he would host a dinner for the top 220 investors in the coin and would provide an ``exclusive bonus'' VIP White House tour for the top 25 investors suddenly boosted Trump's crypto venture. Trump has already made more than $300 million from trading fees alone and billions more in unrealized gains since he owns 80 percent of those coins.

And this is not his only crypto grift. Two weeks after the Banking Committee voted on the GENIUS Act in March, President Trump's crypto company World Liberty Financial launched its own stablecoin called USD1. Donald Junior is promoting it as ``just as safe as a bank account but without all that extra nonsense.'' USD1 was quietly launched less than a week ago, and its market capitalization now exceeds $2 billion. It is already the seventh largest stablecoin in the entire world.

As the New York Times reported last week in a front-page story about Trump's crypto corruption:

World Liberty Financial has eviscerated the boundary

between private enterprise and government policy in ways

without precedent in modern American history.

And here is the most egregious example: Trump's stablecoin was issued on the network of Binance, the largest crypto exchange in the world. Binance is an interesting choice to be Trump's partner in the stablecoin business. Back in 2023, Binance pleaded guilty to criminal charges after allowing ``money to flow to terrorists, cyber criminals, and child abusers through its platform.'' Its CEO went to jail after also pleading guilty to criminal money laundering charges. He is reportedly lobbying Trump for a pardon. What better way to buy off Donald Trump than to offer him a very favorable business deal in the stablecoin business.

The opportunity for corruption is not hypothetical. Trump has already given us a staggering example. Last week, it was reported that an Abu Dhabi investment firm MGX is using Trump's USD1 stablecoin to finance a $2 billion investment in Binance, essentially giving Trump a cut of the deal. The firm is chaired by the so-called spy sheikh of the United Arab Emirates and co-

owned by G42, a firm with extensive ties to the Chinese Government. The Trump Organization recently announced plans to build a hotel and an apartment building in the UAE, and buyers--you guessed it--will be allowed to make payments in bitcoins.

The GENIUS Act makes this kind of corruption worse. There is nothing in the bill to stop it. Instead, the bill would accelerate it. President Trump and the crypto industry are not trying to jam through this bill because they know it will make corruption and bribery harder. They are trying to jam it through because they know it will turbocharge the size and scale of the stablecoin market and help boost the value of their own stablecoin ventures, all while containing no real restrictions on the President's self-dealing.

Under the current version of the bill, President Trump is able to rake in transaction fees every time his stablecoin is used or traded. When trading is active, those fees are measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Trump will also make money a second way: Everyone who owns USD1 essentially provides Trump with an interest-free loan. This means that Trump will make money on assets backing the stablecoin, and he will pay no interest to the holders of the coin. Big corporations and foreign governments can run the MGX play and use USD1 to cut Trump in on business deals or openly pay him off for tariff exemptions and other special deals, pardons, or government appointments. For a giant corporation hoping to see a prosecution dropped or a license granted, Trump's new stablecoin business creates a way to offer a payoff for the President of the United States to use his influence to get the desired outcome.

These massive opportunities for grift must be stopped, and Democrats have commonsense amendments to do exactly that. For example, we propose that the President and all other elected officials and their families be barred from owning, controlling, promoting, or otherwise participating in stablecoin business ventures. While I believe that all elected officials should be barred from buying, selling, and trading stock, investments in stablecoin companies themselves create a special risk right now. Congress is currently writing laws that will sharply increase or decrease the value of these businesses. The public should know that no one is making decisions to further their own financial interests. The current version of the GENIUS Act contains no such restrictions. The Senate should not pass a bill that facilitates Trump's breathtaking corruption and lines his pockets and welcomes other elected officials to do the same.

There are other fundamental problems with the GENIUS Act that need to be fixed before we vote.

It is crucial to prohibit the intermingling of commercial businesses and stablecoins. For centuries, our country has maintained a separation between our system of money and payments on the one side and actual businesses in the real economy on the other side. That separation helps protect the stability of our financial system, helps promote fair competition in the economy, and prevents concentrating too much economic power in the hands of just a few.

Democrats and Republicans have, time and again, linked arms to defend exactly this separation. For example, when Mark Zuckerberg tried to leverage Facebook to create a stablecoin in 2019, both Democrats and Republicans said: No. Run Facebook or run a stablecoin operation, but do not mix the two together. Under the GENIUS Act, however, Zuckerberg could launch his own coin as soon as the bill is passed.

This is particularly of interest to Elon Musk. He has already explained his plan to expand his social media platform X into a payment platform, X Money. He has said that he can use the reach of X so that, in a few years, his X Money and his stablecoin will be ``half of the global financial system.'' The man has vision. He and other Big Tech billionaires would be free to issue their own currencies to compete with the U.S. dollar.

There is absolutely no reason to allow this. Other bipartisan stablecoin bills have not permitted this. Blessing ``co-President'' Elon Musk's ambitions to overtake the U.S. money supply is completely unnecessary to build a well-regulated and safe stablecoin regime. Democrats have an amendment to prohibit the intermingling between nonfinancial companies and stablecoin issuers, and we should make that change before we vote on the GENIUS Act here in the Senate.

It is also important to strengthen the GENIUS Act to safeguard our national security. Stablecoins now count for more than 60 percent of crypto transactions, according to a recent public analysis from the blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis, making them the ``new kingpin of illicit crypto activity.'' The current version of the bill does little to prevent stablecoins from being exploited by terrorists, cartels, and criminals. In fact, compared to the version voted out of the Banking Committee, the current bill creates new loopholes to allow operators of so-called decentralized crypto exchanges and other services to continue circulating for noncompliant stablecoin issuers.

It is critical for service providers like crypto exchanges and custodians to maintain programs to check for illegal financial activity and for our government to be able to sanction mixers that move millions of dollars for our adversaries. It is important also that terrorists and drug traffickers know that they cannot escape sanctions enforcement by switching from dollars to stablecoins, and it is critical that stablecoin issuers be required to monitor the blockchains on which stablecoins are traded. As drafted, the GENIUS Act does not include those safeguards. Democrats have language to fix that.

We need also to ensure that the same basic consumer protections that apply when somebody pays their rent using their checking account or buys a cup of coffee with their credit card also apply to stablecoins. For example, at a bare minimum, consumers should have easy access to their money if they want to redeem their stablecoins. However, the GENIUS Act does not do that, leaving consumers exposed to potential delays, process hurdles, and junk fees.

When it comes to consumer protection, the most recent version of the bill actually got worse compared to the version that was voted on in committee. The current GENIUS Act strips out certain protections, leaving consumers exposed to fly-by-night, scammy wallet providers to hold their stablecoins. And--get this--all but the very largest stablecoin issuers get to evade auditing requirements, leaving consumers vulnerable to the type of financial fraud that is now rampant in the crypto ecosystem.

Notably, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not mentioned once in the bill despite the CFPB being responsible for enforcing our Nation's Federal consumer financial laws.

As Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in a Senate hearing shortly after DOGE attempted to shut down the CFPB, when CFPB is not on the job enforcing consumer protection laws, there is no one in the Federal Government to pick up the slack--no cop on the beat. That is exactly what the supporters of the GENIUS Act are hoping for--no one in the Federal Government who has the expertise or the budget to be a real cop on the beat. The stablecoin scammer will target every person in America, and under the GENIUS Act, they will run almost no risk of getting caught.

The current version of the GENIUS Act leaves consumers exposed to scams, fraud, and abuse. We can plug those holes and make sure that consumers are protected when making electronic payments regardless of the technology that underpins the transaction, and Democrats have amendments for that.

Finally, the GENIUS Act lacks the basic safeguards necessary to ensure that stablecoins don't blow up our entire financial system. This isn't a hypothetical risk. Circle's stablecoin dipped from $1 to 88 cents in March of 2023--2 years ago--threatening a broader run on the crypto market. But regulators bailed out Circle's and other big corporations' deposits at Silicon Valley Bank in order to prevent a banking crash. Money market funds and the repo market, which pose similar risks as stablecoins, have been bailed out twice in less than 20 years.

The threats that stablecoins pose to our economic system are real, and once

again taxpayers will be called on to bail out millionaires and billionaires--only this time, it will be the millionaires and billionaires who are fronting for cryptocurrencies.

The bill as drafted permits stablecoin issuers to invest in riskier assets, including uninsured U.S. and foreign bank deposits and repo loans and hedge funds, and allows them to engage in risky nonstablecoin activities, like private credit or derivatives trading.

At the same time, the bill constrains regulators' ability to apply capital and liquidity safeguards to limit the chances of stablecoin failures. It restricts regulators' ability to enforce the already weak requirements of the bill when a stablecoin issuer violates them, and it stacks the deck against denying stablecoin applications submitted by risky companies.

In addition, regulators would have no authority to block worrisome mergers and acquisitions even if the new stablecoin owners have a history of financial fraud or money laundering.

Let's just give an example here. Sam Bankman-Fried decides he wants to buy a stablecoin company while he is still in prison. The GENIUS Act says: Go right ahead.

Democrats have solutions to fix these financial stability weaknesses, and we should include them in the bill now. If the GENIUS Act goes forward without these changes, Donald Trump will continue to line his pockets with crypto scams while his policies continue to tank the economy for everyone else. Efforts to personally pay off government officials like the President of the United States will accelerate, and they are going to happen right out in the open. Big Tech billionaires will have even greater control over our economy. Terrorism financing and sanctions evasion risks will grow. Consumers will be at greater risk of getting cheated. Another financial crash will be more likely.

The problems with this bill are serious, but here is the thing: They can be solved. Democrats have offered solutions throughout this process, and it is not too late. We can find common ground on a reasonable framework to regulate the stablecoin market and to put those changes into the bill now. But we cannot bless Trump's corruption and put consumers, our financial system, and our national security at risk.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution would nullify a National Park Service rule that manages motor vehicle use within the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. It is a commonsense rule that this resolution targets, and it outlines where cars and off-road vehicles are allowed to travel within the boundaries of the national recreation area. It shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't be political.

The Glen Canyon National Recreation Area is a very popular destination. It offers ample opportunities for backcountry exploration across 1.25 million acres of public land. To put that in perspective, this area is larger than the entire State of Rhode Island.

Now, the National Park Service is tasked with managing park units in a manner that balances public access and enjoyment while ensuring responsible stewardship of the natural environment. That is their job.

Achieving that balance can be a tall order under the best of circumstances. It has become even more difficult as the Trump administration works to dismantle the National Park Service. More than 12.5 percent of the entire workforce has left the agency since Donald Trump took office. It has only been a little more than 100 days, and we are already down 2,000 rangers and park employees.

House Republicans have stood by and watched, and now they are proposing a resolution that undermines national park management even further. As a reminder, this resolution would repeal a rule that manages all motorized vehicle access within Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, a unit of the Park Service that is home to very fragile ecosystems like the Orange Cliffs adjacent to Canyonlands National Park and countless cultural and archeological resources.

Initial planning started way back in 2007 and was not finalized until the first Trump administration published an overly permissive record of decision in 2018. A court determined that the 2018 version of the rule did not do enough to consider the environmental consequences of allowing off-road vehicles on certain roads, so the Park Service went back to work and they published a new rule that achieved a better balance.

The updated rule, which is being targeted today, balances visitor use and access with the long-term stewardship and management of park resources.

Despite some of the rhetoric that we may hear from the other side of the aisle, the Park Service did not shut off access to off-road vehicles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rule allows off- road vehicles on 388 miles of road within the park, only closing access to approximately 6 percent of the existing roadways to protect sensitive resources.

Even those roads are still open to cars, jeeps, and other street- legal vehicles. They are just closed to vehicles that have the ability to travel off-road and cause severe damage in proposed wilderness and other sensitive landscapes.

That is 94 percent of the roads in this Park Service unit open to motor vehicles, including off-road vehicles, and

then just 6 percent where only street-legal vehicles are allowed. That is a very reasonable tradeoff that protects the park for future generations.

It is also worth noting that Congress has never used the Congressional Review Act in the way it is being used right now to repeal a Park Service decision of this nature. This is meddling and micromanaging at its worst, and it could have some unintended consequences as we will discuss in the course of this debate.

When Congress uses the CRA to repeal a rule, then the agency is prohibited by law from issuing a substantially similar rule on the same topic. The decision to repeal this rule could lead to some unintended consequences that would backfire on the very off-road vehicle community that my friends across the aisle are saying that they are trying to protect.

Park managers would be unable to change or alter access even if a proliferation of off-road vehicle use is damaging park resources. That is the downside from the environmental perspective, but even worse, from the perspective of these off-road vehicles, it could mean an end to all off-roading in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

Mr. Speaker, Park Service has to have a rule in place if they want to authorize any access. That is what this rule does. If Congress repeals it and the CRA says no replacement rule can be issued, that is how it works. It is like Cortez when he got to Mexico, he burned the boats so nobody would go back. That is how the CRA works.

You burn the bridge; you can't go back on that particular subject area. A court in the future may well decide that the absence of a rule means no off-roading. Period.

It is the kind of uncertainty that would be discussed and fleshed out if you took the time to have a hearing and have a little bit of deliberation instead of jamming a CRA like this, a blunt instrument, right on the House floor.

If the intent is truly about preserving access, there are better ways to do it. There are certainly much better ways for Congress to uplift and support our national parks; for example, standing up to Donald Trump and Elon Musk's gutting of the National Park Service.

I wish we spent more time talking about that rather than a very reckless use of the Congressional Review Act.

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

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

I stand by what I said a few minutes ago. Without the rule in place or a replacement rule, off-roading could very well be illegal in all of Glen Canyon.

I did expect that my colleagues across the aisle would state that they assume the Park Service would simply revert back to a previous rule. Now, I don't know for sure because Republicans didn't hold a hearing on the legislation to bring in a witness from the Park Service to answer any questions, but there are two problems with this assumption they seem to be proceeding under.

One, the current rule was issued under a settlement agreement to enforce compliance with environmental protection laws. Repealing that rule doesn't repeal those legal obligations, so whatever outdated rule the administration might try to revive will still have to comply with those laws, and a court is going to strike it down when it doesn't.

Two, as we keep having to remind our colleagues, using the CRA to repeal a rule doesn't just remove that rule, it also prohibits the agency from ever issuing a substantially similar rule on this same topic. That means any rule regarding off-road access in this park unit.

This repeal is practically inviting a court to strike down whatever fallback rule the administration tries reverting to, and when that litigation ensues and they comb through the Congressional Record to divine the intent of Congress, they will see pretty plainly that I warned you folks that that was the case right here on the record.

Now, since this information seems new to some of my colleagues, they may be thinking: Wait, that can't be right. Wouldn't this sort of thing have happened before?

The answer is no, because Congress has never used the CRA to micromanage a park or a park-access rule this narrow in the way that is being proposed with this resolution. The entire scheme is untested, reckless, and ill-advised.

If my colleagues accidentally ban off-roading in Glen Canyon, I hope they are ready to explain that to their constituents, assuming they ever hold townhall meetings again.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. Last week was National Park Week, an annual tradition meant to honor our deep connection to national parks. President Trump carried on the tradition by issuing a proclamation to officially designate the week--this is one of the few noncontroversial actions in the first 100 days of this administration--because all Americans love and value and support national parks.

Unfortunately, the proclamation also highlighted how the administration is trying to use national parks to tell a myopic and narrow view of our history. This revisionist turn is exemplified by President Trump's decision to rename Mount Denali in Alaska despite overwhelming criticism and concern from Alaska Native leaders and other voices in the State. It is clear the President is more interested in branding and flashy stunts than actually supporting our national parks and public lands.

House Republicans have stood by and watched as all of this happened. They did nothing as President Trump and Elon Musk decimated the land management workforce, shuttered critical buildings, and froze funding for critical grant programs designed to safeguard and restore our parks and our public lands.

Just since January, the Park Service has lost 1,700 rangers and Park Service staff, leaving parks understaffed and resources vulnerable just before the busiest time of the year. There have to be better ways to celebrate and cherish our national parks than to dismantle them.

We could be doing something to restore all the jobs that have been cut by this administration. We could debate proposals to create new parks or expand existing ones to honor our shared history and protect our most cherished landscapes. We could advance comprehensive and thoughtful appropriations bills that invest in the future of our parks and our public lands.

Instead of doing any of these productive and responsible actions, House Republicans decided to use some more precious floor time to overturn a narrow and specific rule at the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. That is a disappointment, another missed opportunity, and a testament to the priorities of this Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, I again urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 60.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 60, led by Representative Maloy. This is an important effort that will overturn an onerous and unnecessary regulation designed to restrict off-highway vehicle access and recreational use of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

House Republicans are committed to pursuing a comprehensive approach to restoring multiple use and public access to our Federal lands, one that favors commonsense land management and prioritizes community buy- in over preservationist policies that are cooked up here in Washington,

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

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that the idea that passing this Congressional Review Act would restrict all off-road vehicle access is just not right. That is not going to happen. There was a rule in place before the Biden administration put the new rule in place. We vetted this with the Congressional Research Service. We would simply go back to the rule that was in place that was working fine before the Biden administration came in and put this onerous rule in place.

Also, the argument has been made that only 24 out of 388 miles have been restricted to off-road vehicle use, but as we all know, roads are networks. For instance, there is a half-mile section in this ruling under the Biden administration that blocks off access to over a million acres. You block off a half-mile of road, and you restrict the use to a million acres. I don't think that is what most people would call public access or would agree that it is the way that we should be managing our Federal lands, especially in an area that when it was established, part of its goal was to be able to provide off-road vehicles a place to recreate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman for her efforts on this legislation and for being a voice for her constituents. She talked about the county governments there that didn't have a voice when this rule was made. This is hurting their economy. It doesn't make sense, and it is kind of a bad example of having that distant landlord with an alternative agenda that lives many miles away managing the land where you live. I thank her for her efforts on behalf of her constituents and on all Americans who enjoy outdoor recreation.

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

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

I just want to say that it is unfortunate that we are having to use a Congressional Review Act, but it is unfortunate that a former administration tried to legislate from the administrative branch.

That is the purpose of the Congressional Review Act. When bureaucrats overstep their bounds, we have this tool to rein them back in. It would not allow them to make this rule again. A clear reading of the Congressional Review Act, it is easy to see that the rule would go back to the rule that was in place before the Biden administration put the rule in place that we are doing the Congressional Review Act on. It is also common sense that that would happen, and it is clearly the intent of Congress, should this get signed into law, that it would go back to the original rule.

I again applaud Representative Maloy for her exceptional leadership in this effort and for looking out for her constituents. This is a necessary resolution that will allow for more recreation opportunities, greater public access, and growth within Utah's outdoor recreation economy. Whether it is hunting, fishing, hiking, or recreating on off- highway vehicles, our public lands were meant to be enjoyed by all Americans, and this CRA allows just that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the joint resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.