Relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have to ask, Mr. Speaker: What the hell is the Republican majority doing?

I mean, last week, these guys canceled Congress and went home all because they don't want new moms or dads to be able to vote. So much for being the party of family values.

The gentlewoman just said that the Speaker is very much in support of family values, yet he has a problem with allowing new moms and dads to be able to vote by proxy. He seems to have no problem with Republican Members flying to the West Coast, filming comedy shows in Hollywood, and voting by proxy.

I mean, I don't get it. That is what family values mean to my Republican friends?

It took the Speaker a week--it took the Speaker a whole week--to buy off a few votes by offering a pretend deal. Now, Republicans are ready to move forward on the important legislative business of--wait for it-- passing the same bills they rejected last week, not that these bills are any better the second time around.

These bills include a bill that will make it harder for women to vote, a bill to let the Trump administration break the law, and two resolutions that stick it to consumers.

Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, who asked for these? Which Trump donor wrote these measures?

Meanwhile, what aren't we talking about on the floor right now? We aren't talking about the tariffs, not a peep about the tariffs, not a peep about the chaos in the markets, not a peep about the uncertainty this is causing, not a peep about how this is going to screw over middle America.

Never in my life have I seen anything like this.

The President promised lower prices and a booming economy, and we are going to get higher prices and a recession. This is nuts.

Trump isn't using tariffs strategically. He is launching an economic nuclear war, and we are all in the blast zone. This is a disaster.

Even if you agree with these tariffs, which is nuts, put that aside. Even if you are a fan, can just one Republican admit that it is insane that one guy is making this call alone?

Our Founders fought a revolution to stop one person from having this much power, and so-called conservatives are rewriting the rules to dodge a vote in Congress. This is crazy.

They are totally fine giving Trump unlimited power to do whatever the hell he wants, and they won't even let us vote. They won't even let us vote.

A few minutes ago, I sought recognition for a motion allowed under the law to bring a joint resolution to the floor to end just one of Trump's tariffs, and that request was denied because Republicans have rigged the rules. Let me repeat that. Republicans have rigged the rules, and I will talk more about that during this debate.

This is all because Republicans know what is coming, and they are scared. They know people are going to lose

their jobs. They know paychecks are going to shrivel. They know prices will go up, retirement plans will go down, and businesses are going to stop investing.

They don't want to have to go home and explain it. They don't want to have to put their names on that. They are rigging the rules so we don't have a vote.

Guess what. They can run from accountability, but they can't hide from the consequences.

You guys own this. You own the tariffs. You own the fallout.

There is no plan here, no strategy, just economic self-sabotage. Regular Americans are going to pay the price for these tariffs. This is a disaster for our country, and you guys are too chicken to even vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on whether you support the tariffs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) will be happy to learn that it already is the law that only American citizens can vote in Federal elections. I am happy to send him the law so that he can understand that.

Our problem with the SAVE Act is that it is an attempt to make it more difficult for women who are U.S. citizens to be able to vote.

Talking about rigging the rules, again, there are four closed rules in this rule. For those who are tuning in, that means that we can't offer any amendments, we can't change anything, and we just have to take it or leave it. That is called rigging the rules so that Democrats and Republicans can't participate in the process.

Then there is a fifth measure in here. The gentleman who was just screaming on the floor helped lead the effort to get the Speaker of the House basically to go against the will of the majority in this House who wanted very much to have an up or down vote on whether or not we could allow new parents to be able to vote by proxy, so that they could actually stay home with their new baby for a brief period of time and be able to represent their constituents at the same time.

What is in this rule is a fake compromise, they call it. It is a nothing burger. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't help anybody. Basically, we can't debate or vote up or down on that. It is deemed passed. Magically, it is deemed passed in this rule if this rule gets a majority vote.

Mr. Speaker, not to mention what I was saying at the very beginning that Republicans have basically shut off any attempts to bring legislation to the floor to deal with President Trump's tariffs, which, by the way, are going to result in enormous cost increases for consumers.

Mr. Speaker, this whole House is being mismanaged. This whole House is being run in a way that, quite frankly, would impress Vladimir Putin. Yet, then again, maybe that is who they want to impress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen), who led the effort, along with Ms. Jacobs of California, to grant new parents the ability to be able to be good parents, to be able to be with their newborns and still be able to represent their constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me correct the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). We are not voting on any kind of compromise here. It is being deemed. Republicans have it tucked into the rule so that we don't have a separate vote on it. We are not going to have a separate debate on it. Yet, that is one of the tactics used so that we can't actually talk about it on the House floor.

Secondly, paired voting, if it was such a good idea, why did we get rid of it 25 years ago? Basically, it is a glorified way to highlight to people that Members are absent and not here voting. Ms. Pettersen's vote won't count if she is not here.

It is just a stupid, ridiculous way to try to deal with the issue at hand, which is that new moms and dads actually should be able to be good moms and dads, stay with their kids at home, and be able to still represent their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) for any additional comments.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I laid out how Donald Trump's tariffs are causing chaos and hurting families. I will explain why we are unable to force a vote to block them here in the House, even though the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act provide a process to terminate national emergencies through a privileged joint resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the House Rules and Manual says here: ``A privileged motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of a joint resolution terminating an emergency is available after the measure has been referred to committee for 15 calendar days.''

A Member of this House, Ranking Member Meeks, introduced H.J. Res. 72, terminating the national emergency imposing tariffs on Canada, 34 days ago.

Earlier, I offered a motion to discharge his joint resolution from committee and bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, why wasn't it allowed?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, what I am just trying to figure out is whether it is in order in the House to move to discharge H.J. Res. 72 or H.J. Res. 73 from committee so that they can be considered on the floor.

I guess we are not going to get an answer.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't allowed because Republicans changed how time itself works in the House to prevent a vote on tariffs that is allowed under the law.

Mr. Speaker, I will be clear here because the stakes are very high. We are

talking about whether this House has the authority under the current rules to stop the President of the United States from imposing disastrous, calamitous tariffs that are causing economic chaos, raising prices for regular Americans, and causing uncertainty for businesses.

A motion to discharge Ranking Member Meeks' resolution is not allowed because Republicans literally changed the definition of what a day is to protect themselves from voting on tariffs.

Now, we should have been able to call it up after 15 days, but Republicans are pretending 34 days is less than 15 days. Republicans rigged the rules to protect Donald Trump, Mr. Speaker, and to protect themselves from voting on his tariffs.

H. Res. 211, which the Republican majority adopted in March, changed the operation of the calendar.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I have the resolution in front of me and it says that each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.

So that resolution changed the operation of the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as the law, to make sure that Members of this House cannot force a vote on Trump's tariffs.

Is that right, Mr. Speaker?

In fact, that is right, Mr. Speaker. You may not want to opine on it, but the truth is, Republicans rigged the rules to prevent a vote on these tariffs, a vote that Members of this body would have been able to demand if we were following the law. I want to get to the bottom of why we can't vote on these tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the National Emergencies Act states that a joint resolution to terminate a national emergency passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committees of the other House at which point the 15-day clock would start if Republicans hadn't magically stopped time.

According to that provision in law, Senator Kaine of Virginia's resolution terminating the national emergency to impose tariffs on Canada which was adopted by the Senate last week in a bipartisan vote, but according to that, that bill must be referred to committee.

Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

Well, it is not relevant to the discussion because Republicans won't let us discuss the tariffs, but that is certainly how I read ``shall,'' Mr. Speaker. Senator Kaine's resolution to force a vote on Trump's tariffs has been sitting on Speaker Johnson's desk since last week.

Mr. Speaker, if a measure is held at the Speaker's desk, it is not subject to a discharge petition and we can't have an up-or-down vote on these tariffs. The Speaker of the House right now is singlehandedly preventing Members from forcing a vote on these tariffs, again, a right that is in the law.

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure I understand this. Why are Republicans rigging the rules to prevent a vote on Trump's tariffs?

Mr. Speaker, you might not want to answer and you might not like that I am pointing it out, but that is exactly what is happening here.

Republicans have rigged the rules by literally redefining the definition of a day to prevent us from voting on Trump's tariffs, and the Speaker of the House is locking the Senate resolution in his desk.

These are the types of procedural tricks that Republicans try to bury in the rules and hope that no one ever notices because they are too confusing or too in the weeds. Not only did we notice, Mr. Speaker, but we are going to make sure that the American people notice, too. One way or the other, the American people are going to render a verdict on what is happening here in this Chamber, and if it doesn't happen on this floor, you can be damn sure it is going to happen at the ballot box.

These tariffs are going to be a disaster and the fact that Republicans are too scared to stand up and vote for or against them just proves my point.

This is a disgrace. This is the people's House. We are supposed to debate serious issues on this floor, and the Republican leadership of this House is rigging the rules so we can't do that. That is absurd and that is a national disgrace.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what you just heard from the distinguished Chairwoman of the Rules Committee is basically that the Republicans are too afraid to debate and vote on tariffs. That is what we just heard. What is really interesting is that in this rule that they are bringing to the floor, they have a bill that will actually raise bank fees on consumers, believe it or not. They want to give banks the authority to charge more for overdrafts. That is in this bill.

They are too busy to talk about the fact that Donald Trump is raising the cost of living and the cost of everything for average people in this country, but they are not too busy to talk

about having banks raise bank fees on citizens of this country.

This is so messed up it is hard to believe. Right now, if you talk to anybody in your district, if you did townhalls, which I know Republicans don't want to do anymore--but if you did townhalls, people are really nervous about not only the stock market and the uncertainty there, but they are really nervous about rising prices.

People are trying to make ends meet and they are really concerned about what is happening. Yet, Republicans are just too busy to talk about the impact of these tariffs on their constituents here in the House of Representatives?

Let that sink in, Mr. Speaker. This is ludicrous.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.J. Res. 91, a joint resolution to terminate the reckless tariffs that President Trump has put in place.

These tariffs are the largest middle-class tax increase in the last 50 years. Consumers are worried because their prices are skyrocketing and iPhone prices could go up as much as $350. Every American with a retirement account is worried because they are seeing their savings evaporate. The S&P 500 registered its worst week since March 2020 when Donald Trump, by the way, was also President.

Farmers are worried because the tariffs might put them out of business. Some of them are already renting out their land since they know they likely won't be able to make anything in 2025.

The result of all this needless chaos: less money in consumers' pockets, less confidence in our country, and less certainty about our future. That is why we must bring up H.J. Res. 91 to put Republicans on record, to let Congress do our jobs, and to keep our constituents' hard-earned money in their pockets.

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\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I talked about all these issues last week. I talked about how I was opposed to the bill that raises bank fees on regular people. I talked about how their bill to make it more difficult for women to vote was a bad idea. I talked about the importance of helping new parents be able to vote by proxy.

Forgive me if I am not following your made-up rules, but we already discussed all this stuff last week.

When is the time that we are going to actually talk about the tariffs and about the fact that Donald Trump is raising prices on average people in this country? When are we going to have time to do that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, gee, I wonder why this administration more than any other administration has so many injunctions against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

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

It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The entire world is watching in astonishment as Donald Trump lights the American economy on fire.

Our voters deserve to know where their Members of Congress stand on these tariffs. I just tried to force a vote. I was shut down because the truth is they know this will be a disaster, and that is why they are blocking Democrats from demanding a vote.

Republicans don't want to lower costs anymore. They want to lower the standard of living, and that is exactly what these tariffs will do.

Now, let's be clear. Foreign countries don't pay the tariffs. We do. American businesses, American farmers, American families, that is who pays the tariffs, and unfortunately, the damage has been done.

Our trading partners are abandoning us. Our allies don't trust us. Our adversaries are laughing at us. The cherry on top is that Trump can't even explain the goal. He is slapping tariffs on everyone, including uninhabited islands but not on Russia, no tariffs on Russia. There are tariffs on Ukraine, but not on Russia. I am sure Putin is thrilled.

This is a gut punch to middle America. This is a tax on every single family in America. This is a disaster for our future. Congress needs to do its job. It is time for every Republican to put their name on this mess or finally stand up and stop it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 294, providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; S.J. Res. 28, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

House Resolution 294 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides each one motion to commit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 293 is hereby adopted and provides that House Resolution 164 is laid on the table.

The rule before us today provides Congress with yet another opportunity to stand for consumer choice and business innovation in our Nation. It provides an opportunity to defend the integrity of our elections, and it provides for a historic opportunity to rein in rogue judges and return public policy decisions to their rightful branches of government.

H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office.

The only people who should vote in American elections are American citizens. There should be no debate or question about that. The SAVE Act adds additional layers of protection to elections right here in our own country. It is an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support.

H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, would limit the authority of district judges to provide sweeping injunctive relief on a nationwide or exceedingly broad scale.

As of late, we have certainly seen a slew of rulings by rogue judges that surpass their own constitutional authority. Americans are rightfully concerned about this very issue.

Let me be clear. This is judicial warfare in the flesh. Without question, exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of judicial philosophy does nothing more than blight justice itself.

S.J. Res. 18, a Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn a midnight rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, that undercuts the ability of lower-income Americans to access liquidity.

To put it very simply, this CFPB's rule hurts the very consumers that it purports to protect.

One of the likely outcomes of this rule being fully implemented would be low-income Americans being expelled from the financial system entirely due to lack of overdraft protection. It is time that we add this midnight rule to the burn pile.

S.J. Res. 28, another Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn another CFPB rule that unjustly shackles private-sector companies that operate within the digital asset marketplace.

This rule is billed as a ``consumer protection'' mechanism, but what it really does is misclassifies an entire segment of digital products with the aim of regulating them straight into the ground. The CFPB overstepped its regulatory authority in its pursuit of subjugating the American economy in the name of consumer protection. This is another misguided rule that we must render null and void.

Mr. Speaker, before I reserve, I want to take a moment to recognize the good faith efforts of Speaker Johnson in helping maintain a strong family-centric posture here in the people's House.

Leading from the front and building consensus are not always easy endeavors. All of us understand this to be true. However, when done in the right ways and for the right reasons, like what the Speaker has done, we get positive resolutions.

It is obvious that we have a critical mass of Members on what I consider an existential question for this body and that the related discharge effort derailed our agenda for a short time. However, we are back at our post, and our objective right here and now is to move forward.

At the end of the day, our eyes must remain affixed to our very own North Star. Our North Star is governance, Mr. Speaker. Deviating from governing does not serve the American people, nor does it make good on the mandate they entrusted us with.

The compromise agreement of dead pairing that was formulated and led by the Speaker and others is grounded in existing precedents, practices, and, ultimately, common sense.

This is a viable pathway forward that meets two critical imperatives. It allows the clockwork and business of this body to remain unabated while extending due deference to our own majority's own governing principles.

It is not the prerogative of this Republican majority now, nor will it ever be, to use tools of the minority to secure legislative victories. Republicans are the ones manning the helm here, and we must act like it.

In addition, I will add that I firmly believe, as do many others, that Speaker Johnson's work in addressing the concerns raised last week and taking sizable steps to further intertwine rock-solid family values into the fabric of this House are very commendable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, the solution we are going to vote on today to allow mothers and fathers to continue to represent their constituents and to be able to cast their votes is a great solution. It is one that existed in this Congress before. It is a tried and true method. It broadens the ability of people to vote when they cannot be here to vote. We have had situations where we have had people rolled in on gurneys to be able to vote.

Mr. Speaker, this is a much fairer way to do this in the way that we are doing it now.

I also remind my colleagues who are speaking against or saying we are not dealing with the tariffs issue is that former Speaker Pelosi, Senator Schumer, and other Democrats railed against Chinese tariffs years ago but did nothing about them. They even supported President Biden's preserving of the tariffs from the Chinese most recently, and they said nothing about it here.

President Trump is doing something about the tariffs. He is responding in ways that will strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers. He is showing leadership where the Democrats have shown none.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of. We are here solving problems for the American people every day. We are responding to what we were asked to do in the last election.

I just point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that Republicans had a majority in the 118th Congress, the most recent Congress. We are now in the 119th Congress.

We deemed only two items that were passed in the Committee on Rules. In the 117th Congress, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, they deemed 38 different items as passed in the Committee on Rules.

There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker: ``Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid to debate tariffs, but we have four bills to debate here today. That is the business that we need to be dealing with.

I will point out to my friends, again, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The Democrats love to claim foul on Republicans shutting off national emergencies, but perhaps they should reconsider given their own record when it comes to tolling day counts.

They want to claim that Republicans are stopping time, but perhaps they forget just a few short years ago, in the Democrat-controlled 117th Congress, their own House rules package, H. Res. 8, conveniently stopped time for both legislative and calendar days regarding a myriad of processes.

Let me read, Mr. Speaker, from their rules:

``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. 1546.

``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of Rule XIII.

``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a calendar or legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of Rule XII.''

Now, what is this, the pot calling the kettle black? I am just not sure of that. I do think it is important, though, to remind our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this happened. Mr. McGovern wants the country to know what is going on here. We want the country to know what is going on here, too.

Let me say that this is a package that all four minority members of our committee voted in favor of, by the way. These manipulations were maintained for nearly 18 months in subsequent rules with continued support by the committee's minority counterparts.

Similarly, when it comes to the National Emergencies Act, in a rule they permanently blocked votes terminating the COVID national emergency, despite Mr. Gosar introducing two separate disapproval resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, be careful what you accuse us of because we have the facts and the record on our side.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Reading Clerk told us what we were here to do today. In my opening remarks, I read out what it is we are here to do today. We have a rule, and then we are going to have four bills to vote on. That is what we are here for.

Our Democratic colleagues are desperate. They do not want to talk about this rule and what it does or the underlying bills. They want us to try to look at shiny objects over here, Mr. Speaker, that have nothing to do with what we are here to do today.

What Republicans want to do is focus on what we are here to do today. We could talk about tariffs sometime, yes. We are happy to do that, but let's talk about what we have to do here.

The Democrats don't want to talk about these because they correct issues that the Biden administration did wrong, these midnight rules of the CFPB. They don't want to talk about the rogue judges who have been overruled by the Supreme Court. They don't want to talk about what is happening here and now. They want to try to distract the American people with other issues.

Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the issues at hand. Let's focus on those, do our job as Members of Congress, and get on with our business today.

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

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

I am going to take a little time to address the importance of the No Rogue Rulings Act and why the American people are demanding action against this unchecked abuse of nationwide injunctions.

The fact is activist liberal judges have been utilizing nationwide injunctions in an unprecedented fashion. There have been 17 identified cases in which Federal courts issued nationwide injunctions between January 20, 2025, and March 27, 2025, against the Trump administration.

Compare this to the 19 injunctions issued during the entire Obama Presidency, 8 years, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-five such injunctions were issued against the first Trump administration, 4 years, Mr. Speaker. If we look back to the Presidency of George W. Bush, only 12 nationwide injunctions were issued in 8 years. Some estimate that only 27 nationwide injunctions were issued in the 20th century. This exponential increase demands action.

Nationwide injunctions frequently extend far beyond the immediate parties in a lawsuit, affecting entire populations and jurisdictions not involved in the original dispute. These overreaching rulings create significant uncertainty about Federal policies, drain taxpayer resources, and embolden unelected judges to subvert the will of the American people by thwarting the democratically elected President and Congress.

Article III authorizes Congress to determine what types of cases inferior courts have jurisdiction to review. In some past cases, Congress has exercised this power by stripping Federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain classes of cases, but that drastic action is avoided in this legislation. Instead, it takes a very measured approach. The bill would curtail the scope of injunctive relief but still allow for nationwide injunction under the appropriate circumstances.

Injunctions would still be permitted. What won't be permitted is having an activist judge from a liberal enclave in the country impose a decision that goes far beyond the subject presented before him or her in the courtroom.

The American people shouldn't be robbed of exercising their policy preferences by judicial extremism, and it would apply evenly to future Democratic and Republican administrations alike.

The policies being put forth by the Trump administration are novel, creative, and bold. That is what the American people expected when they voted for President Trump. Just because a policy is untested or unprecedented doesn't mean it is illegal. Democrats may impugn President Trump all they want, but these fundamental constitutional concerns are best settled at the appellate level.

This legislation does nothing to affect the proper avenues for constitutional challenges. Congress has always reserved this power to bring order to the judicial branch. We simply want to impose some order on the chaotic episodes unfolding in our courts.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to respond about the fact that we are denying new mothers and prospective mothers the opportunity to vote with this legislation. That is just not true. It is going to need to be refuted over and over again.

What we have done is accommodate not only prospective and new mothers but we have also accommodated other Members who might need that accommodation. Let me be clear about that. That is absolutely true.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain laser focused on governing and advancing legislation that addresses pertinent issues across the Nation. Our foot is placed firmly upon the gas pedal of solving problems the American people want us to solve.

The four pieces of legislation that will be considered under this rule are part of our governing efforts and are in alignment with the mandate that Americans gave us last November. Shielding consumer choice, protecting consumer choice, and combating foreign influence within higher education in America are issues that Americans care about. We have heard their concerns, and we are addressing them yet again this week.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have heard that story before that this is all about drugs. If I recall correctly, the former President of Honduras probably put more drugs in the United States than Canada has combined. The President of the United States didn't say that was an emergency. He pardoned him. I have heard it before. It is all about drugs. That was the case.

What is the case and what is a fact is that in the last year, tariffs have cost American families nearly $1,700. That cost is expected to increase in 2026. That is the case. Since these tariffs were imposed, U.S. exports to Canada have fallen by more than 21 percent.

When I go home, my constituents aren't telling me they have an extra $1,700 to spare. They are asking me to lower grocery prices, lower the price of healthcare, and make life more affordable. That is what this is about. It is about the American people and making things affordable for them.

Today's vote is simple. It is very simple. Will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vote to lower the cost of living for American families, or will they keep prices high out of loyalty to Donald J. Trump?

That is what this vote is. That is why we pressed for this vote today. That is why a day is a day, and we finally get our chance to have the Members of the House vote their conscience. Do they vote for the President and his ways, or do they vote for their people, their constituents?

Let's be clear about this so-called emergency Donald Trump declared on Canada and so many other countries where no emergency exists. For over 50 years, emergency authorities have been declared. What have they been? Yes, they have been for civil wars. Pandemics? I think that is an emergency. A massive human rights crisis could be an emergency.

Canada is none of those things. Canada isn't a threat. Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally. Canadians have fought alongside Americans, whether it was in World War II or the war in Afghanistan, where 165 Canadians gave their lives after our country was attacked. There is no national emergency. There is no national security threat underpinning these threats.

In an interview just last night, Donald J. Trump admitted he placed tariffs on Switzerland. Why? I will tell my colleagues why. It is simply because he didn't like the way their leader spoke to him. He put tariffs on Switzerland.

That is not a strategy. That is impulse. That is a person who is just trying to say that he is the king. Mr. Speaker, guess what. That impulse, who is going to pay the price for it? Who is going to pay the price for that impulse? I will tell my colleagues who. It is the American people.

Our morning coffee, our kids' chocolate, lifesaving medical devices, those are the Canadian goods that are being hit by 35 percent tariffs. Americans are paying more for healthcare and their daily essentials during an affordability crisis, all because of a manufactured emergency and one person's ego.

The damage doesn't stop there. What about American products? They are being boycotted across Canada. Don't believe me? Just look at the President's social media posts from just 2 days ago where he said:

``Ontario won't even put the U.S. spirits, beverages, and other alcoholic products, on their shelves.''

Tourism from Canada is down 30 percent. People in the hospitality industry--Las Vegas, my home State of New York, and the chairman's home State of Florida--are losing their jobs because Canadians do not want to come to the United States of America.

What are the people getting in return? I will tell my colleagues what they are getting. They are getting higher electricity costs during one of the coldest winters in modern history. They are getting higher food prices and higher costs for industrial goods and healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, this is heads, we lose; tails, we lose.

Tariffs are bad for American workers. They are bad for businesses. They are bad for working families. Instead of addressing the affordability crisis, which the President has called a hoax, Republicans have spent a year blocking this vote to protect Donald Trump, rather than doing their job to help the American people and what the American people did send us here to do, which is to lower costs. That ends today.

Every Member now has to go on record. Do they stand with the disastrous trade war or with their constituents who are demanding relief? It is time we end this so-called national emergency because the only emergency here is the economic one created by Donald J. Trump's tariffs.

I urge the adoption of the resolution and the termination of these unnecessary and harmful tariffs, which are just taxes on the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had some time from the last time that we were on this floor. If he were so serious about drugs, I asked the chairman previously: Why would the President of the United States pardon one of the biggest drug dealers who was killing Americans, Juan Orlando Hernandez. The last time, the gentleman said that he hadn't spoken to the President and didn't know why.

Mr. Speaker, if he is so interested in stopping drugs, maybe he could have and should have had a conversation.

Let me just tell you something about drugs, how much drugs are coming in from Canada, because that is what this is about. As a former special narcotics prosecutor--that is me--I know a little bit about that. Saying that you are going to focus and stop certain things from coming across the border of Canada, as if it is coming across in a cluster like it is an emergency, is just an out-and-out lie.

The fact of the matter is that if you look at the Federal prosecutions--this just came out not too long ago--for narcotics in the United States of America, it just came out that, under the Trump administration, Federal drug prosecutions fell to the lowest level in decades. It talked about that Federal drug prosecutions dropped 10 percent in 2025 as agents changed their focus to immigration, that the number of new cases being filed is the lowest in decades according to a Reuters analysis. High-priority drug investigations have stalled since Donald Trump took office. It doesn't sound like the President of the United States is really concerned about drug prosecutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an individual who really knows about taxes and tariffs, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Have you found out yet why Mr. Hernandez has been pardoned?

I want to find out right now because I would prosecute him.

Have you had a conversation with the President about it?

Well, you should. If you consider--why aren't you prosecuting cases now?

It would not be coming from Canada.

Did the fentanyl come from Canada?

What source is that?

Mr. Speaker, what source is the gentleman talking about?

No, I think that is Canada is doing law enforcement on its side, and we are not doing now law enforcement on our side.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada plays virtually no role in the United States' fentanyl influx, especially compared to other countries targeted by the Trump administration. Canada contributes less than 1 percent to our southern neighbor's border of street fentanyl, less than 1 percent. That is not according to me, because I don't know where he gets his facts, but that is according to the DEA, as well as the Canadian Government, 1 percent.

We do a lot of trade with Canada, and in Florida's 21st District, the chairman's district, exports to Canada support 1,650 jobs. Many of them will begin to lose their jobs. This is about affordability. This is about job creation and the economy. I wonder what he is going to say to those 1,650 people in Florida's 21st District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, the talk time is soon over because of what I am hearing from the other side. Basically what this is about is the American people having a chance to see where their Members are, whether they want to--they will judge ultimately--believe that this is an emergency from what they hear and know of the President or whether they are concerned about their cost of living, whether they are concerned about that hot chocolate, whether they are concerned about that coffee, or whether they are concerned about life-saving medical devices.

What this will do--which has been blocked for almost a year--is simply to have a vote on the House floor so that the American people can see because then ultimately, we will know which way is the right way for them.

We are here to represent the citizens of the United States of America, not a President. We soon will have a vote because that is what is going to happen, which is what I have been asking for for over a year. If you think this is an emergency, if you believe the President, you are going to vote that way. If you think this is going to be accountable to the American people, if you think that the American people will say that the cost of living, the cost of electricity, the cost of food every day they go to the market is of concern to them, they will be watching how you vote on this bill. They will be watching. Vote how you want. This is for the American people to see where you stand, with them or the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I will say, yes, the economy is booming. Mr. Speaker, if you are a billionaire, the economy is booming. However, when I go home and I talk to my constituents, what they tell me is that the price of beef has risen 16.4 percent over the last year. The price of coffee is up a whopping 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. So for them, it is not booming.

As I said, this is just about a vote. It is just about a vote. I wish we could have had this vote 1 year ago. If, in fact, they believe this is an emergency, I don't know why it was held up for 1 year and tried to be prevented again.

It is a vote. Let the American people know where you stand, Mr. Speaker. They see it with your vote.

Do you stand with them, Mr. Speaker, trying to fix the affordability crisis, or do you stand with Donald Trump and my Republican colleagues who are just taking care of those for whom the economy is booming, the billionaires of our country?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), who is the ranking member of HFAC's Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

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

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

The American people are watching. This is very simple. Why did we take a year to get this vote? It is because Trump's tariffs are unpopular--the majority of Americans know it--and a majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to be on the record. Well, they are going to be on the record.

They know that more than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of these tariffs. They know that the foreign governments don't pay these tariffs. They know that American families do. The farmers feel it. Small businesses feel it. Moms and dads feel it every time they see the prices at the grocery store.

What this is, we can go back and forth, but the American people are watching. They are the ultimate judges. They can see. They can hear. They know our friend. They know how Canada and Canadians are friendly to us in the United States of America, closest partners. Many Canadians have given their lives for us.

The American people can watch. What this simply does, this resolution, we will see. If you think that there is a crisis with Canada, then vote.

Still, the Constitution says it is the House of Representatives and the United States Congress, it is within our authority. Don't punt. Don't just hide behind somebody else. That is what this will do. If you believe that this is an emergency, vote that way, if that is what you really believe.

However, if you go to the grocery stores, if you see the price of beef, if you look at the price of coffee, if you feel that the economy is suffering as a result of these tariffs, if you think the economy for the average, everyday American is as good as those billionaire friends that the President has, then you vote with the President.

Give up, but don't give up your authority as a Member of this House to vote. The first fight here was the power to vote on this issue, which was blocked for 1 year. I choose not to give up that power. Whether I agree or disagree, I want to vote on it. That was prevented for over a year.

Today, we will vote on it. I thank some of my colleagues on the other side who have had the courage to stand up and say: Let's vote. Let's vote on this, and let the American people know how we stand. Let's vote on this to see if we believe that tariffs cause an affordability issue. Let's vote on this if we believe that Canada is not our friend, if Canada is an adversary, and you feel we should block a bridge like the President is talking about now, a bridge that Canadians paid for right across, block it, make them the 51st State, and insult them. If that is what you want to do, do it.

If you want to stand to bring down prices, if you want the average, everyday American to be able to raise their children and live the American Dream, if you want to make sure that families can afford to pay their rent, can afford to buy food, can afford to have healthcare, then you vote ``yes'' for this resolution.

The jury is really the American people. They ultimately will vote. They ultimately will tell us what is in their best interests. I have confidence in the American people. That is why I wanted a vote on this bill.

I didn't want to play the funny rules that were being played and were attempted last night. Fortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side did not want to play that game anymore either.

Those rules and those games that were played to prevent a vote on the floor in the United States Congress are over. That is what this is about, so the American people can see what we stand for. Do we stand for just going blindly with the President of the United States, or do we stand for the American people and making sure that their cost of living is cheaper and affordable so they can simply send their kids to school and be able to put a good meal on the table and a roof over the heads of their families? That is what this vote is about.

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

I will say that the American people are the judges. They don't need to hear anything else. The American people will judge.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of February 10, 2026, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are about to have a debate apparently for about an hour. We are going to have that debate for one reason and one reason alone. Democrats in the House and in the Senate as well, refuse to recognize that there is a crisis because of fentanyl entering the United States of America.

Whether on our northern border, on our southern border, through the Caribbean, or other places, they refuse to recognize that threat anywhere. Specific to the debate today, they would like to end an executive order relating to the crisis of fentanyl coming across our northern border.

Democrats don't recognize that there is a crisis and that it is killing thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, each and every year. They are trying to literally end that executive order that identifies the national emergency, an emergency that is literally agreed upon by our northern neighbor, Canada. Even Canada acknowledges that they have this as a national emergency.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to correct from that diatribe I just heard. I am going to start to go through some of that.

Number one, who will pay the price? That was a question begged by my colleague. Who will pay the price? It is a very sad thing to have been asked this by my colleague.

It is important to remember what this resolution is. This resolution ends an emergency related to fentanyl. I would say to the gentleman over here that 5,000 people a year die in his State alone from fentanyl.

If he wants to beg the question of who is going to pay the price for him trying to end an emergency that actually for the first time has Canada dealing with fentanyl because of the pressure being put on them, who is going to pay the price? It is going to be 5,000 more of his State's residents. That is who is going to pay the price.

I think the gentleman next to me mentioned as well, when he goes home, this is what he sees when he goes home. When he goes home each and every year, because they don't want to address fentanyl, they are going to see 5,000 less faces because they don't want to deal with fentanyl.

He said it himself. He sees no emergency. The ``so-called emergency'' were the exact words used, the so-called emergency. There is no emergency that exists, to quote my colleague. If 5,000 people were dying in my State every single year from one thing and one thing alone, I think that is an emergency. His people will pay the price.

Let's be clear again about what this resolution is and what it is not. It is not a debate about tariffs. We can talk about those, but that is not really what it is. This is Democrats trying to ignore that there is a fentanyl crisis. Again, they just ignored it. They just literally said it doesn't exist.

I will read again directly from the bill: `` . . . the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 1, 2025, in Executive Order 14193 . . . is hereby terminated.''

That is their language. They are terminating the executive order, and it is an EO on the fentanyl crisis at the northern border.

It matters to talk about that it is the northern border. Why? That is because my Democratic colleagues don't believe that there is a crisis there, but my Democratic colleagues don't believe there is a fentanyl crisis under any circumstance. Any fentanyl that flows into the country, they don't see any of it as a national emergency.

We have yet to find a place where Democrats say that drugs are a national emergency. They made it clear that there is not one single circumstance where they see the deaths of millions of Americans due to fentanyl as a crisis. They don't see that anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, let's look again at my colleague's own State. This is a report. Last report, almost 5,000 deaths, or just under that.

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about the largest fentanyl lab found in Canada. Where was that found in Canada that was recently shut down because of the pressure that President Trump is putting on Canada? It was 30 miles from the New York border. They didn't close it down 2 years ago or 3 years ago. Why not? It was because Canada didn't have the pressure put on them to do so. That is not a coincidence.

Mr. Speaker, again, do you know who is going to pay the price for taking the pressure off of Canada? It is going to be

the constituents of my colleague, where 5,000 people a year die from fentanyl overdose. If I were him, I would think that is a pretty big emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I lost 2,500 brothers and sisters in Afghanistan over the course of 20 years. Our country took that extremely seriously for every single one of them. Mr. Meeks' State is losing double that from fentanyl alone every single year, and he says that he sees no emergency. That is sad for the people of New York.

The administration is doing everything that they can to defeat fentanyl, while my Democratic colleagues are willing to do everything that they can to have those deaths continue. They don't support striking drug boats. We know that much. They don't support removing cartel leaders. We know that. Apparently, they don't support tariffing a country that acknowledges that they have a drug trafficking crisis but weren't doing anything to fix it.

I am going to suspect that my colleague over here doesn't know this as well: Last year, Justin Trudeau, former Prime Minister of Canada, himself addressed the fentanyl problem and said that it needed to be eradicated. That is the Prime Minister of Canada, or former Prime Minister.

It was so bad that Canada created a fentanyl czar, who admitted that they underestimated--Canada underestimated the toll of the fentanyl crisis and what it had taken, and they literally called it, according to the Canadian fentanyl czar, a national security threat.

The northern border, for whom this emergency exists, is acknowledging that there is an emergency, a national security threat, but I guess my colleagues think that they know better.

Mr. Speaker, take the Chinese-run fentanyl lab that I mentioned being shut down, or one of them being shut down, of many. There was over 800 pounds of fentanyl confiscated. Why is it being shut down now and not before? It is being shut down now because the administration had the stones to put economic pressure on them, but my colleagues want to take that pressure off because they don't worry about their people dying in their State.

It is simple. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you care about the U.S. Government responding to millions of Americans being killed by fentanyl, this is the policy that addresses that. Even our northern partner acknowledges that.

The truth is that Canada hasn't wanted to put effort into cracking down on drugs. They didn't want to close the Chinese fentanyl labs. They didn't want to increase their spending on border patrols, but they have to do it because President Trump is putting pressure on them.

Tariffs get more attention than strongly worded letters, and millions of Americans' lives are being saved because President Trump has declared this national emergency and is actively forcing our neighbors, like Canada, to act. It is saving lives.

My colleague wants to make sure that that no longer happens because he doesn't see an emergency, even though 5,000 people from his State are dying every single year. That is pretty sad. That is where the price is paid.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague, Mr. Issa, I would ask my colleague--I am happy to yield a moment--would you like to say 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency?

Crickets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Would you like to respond: 5,000 deaths in New York is an emergency.

Do you want to answer?

I gave you my speculation. It might have been making room for Maduro.

We didn't have that talk, but he might be making room for Maduro.

I asked you a question. Would you like to say 5,000 deaths are an emergency in New York?

Can we engage in a colloquy? Is that something we can do?

Mr. Speaker, then, in this colloquy, I would present the opportunity again: Would my colleague like to deny or admit that 5,000 deaths in New York related to fentanyl is an emergency?

Much of it did. Would you like to hear some stats?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I guess you need to direct your--

You have to direct your remarks to the Speaker.

I would point to just Canada, number one. Canada, in the last year, had an additional 8,000 fentanyl-related arrests because they finally started cracking down on it. There was an increase of 80 percent that was seized at the U.S.-Canada border because of the actions taking place, so, yes, there were deaths going on in New York.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to end this colloquy and reclaim my time.

I note for the record, again, ample opportunities have been given for my colleague, who represents New York, to just say 5,000 fentanyl-related deaths in New York is an emergency. Silence, crickets, no response, because the death of 5,000 of his constituents apparently means nothing to him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Issa for his remarks, and I believe there will be another Representative from California speaking on the other side. I will be curious if that Representative will acknowledge the thousands of deaths from fentanyl in California being an emergency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would let my colleague know that just one-- because he said Canada plays almost no role in fentanyl deaths--one 70- pound bust of fentanyl alone was enough to kill every single person in New York City. Again, my colleague is unwilling to acknowledge that this is about fentanyl, because that is literally what the executive order says, and unwilling to acknowledge that 5,000 deaths in his State is an emergency, certainly in 1 year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), the chair of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me we are talking about the deaths of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Americans, and somebody is talking about wine. We are talking about the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, and my colleagues are talking about wine. Let's get some perspective here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should educate themselves on what these tariffs are affecting. They are third-party goods coming in from countries like China. I don't think they are growing much coffee in Canada. They might want to look at the map and look at the temperatures and where these items grow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. My colleague over here is the ranking member, the top Democrat. It is important that when we use our voice, when we speak, we speak accurately.

Number one, they refuse to speak about the fact that this bill is about ending an emergency relating to a fentanyl crisis. Number two, every single item that they like to talk about on tariffs and Canada are literally items that are exempt from tariffs in Canada.

It is very important, certainly as one of 435 in the House of Representatives, that you know what you are talking about. It is especially important as the number two person on the Foreign Affairs Committee that you know what you are talking about when you talk about tariffs.

There are not Canada beef tariffs, not Canada potash tariffs or dairy or food or grain or fertilizer. The list goes on and on. They mentioned coffee I don't know how many times.

The only things that there are tariffs on are things that are coming in from third-party countries into Canada and then coming into the United States of America. If it is grown in Canada, there is not a tariff on it. It is very important that my colleagues know that and recognize that and speak accurately in the positions that they are in.

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to what this is about.

My colleagues say there is no emergency. In fact, my colleague Mr. Meeks said that if you think there is a crisis, if you think this is an emergency, then vote. Those were his words.

I think the only person on that side who might be able to change the mind of Democrats is my colleague, Mr. Meeks, who is, again, unwilling to acknowledge that the death of 5,000 people in his State from fentanyl alone in 1 year is an emergency. He is unwilling to acknowledge it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the remainder of my time here, about 1 minute, and give my colleague the opportunity one last time to correct the record for his New Yorkers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Would my colleague like to say that 5,000 deaths aren't an emergency?

Would my colleague like to say that 5,000 deaths are an emergency? Five thousand deaths in his State in 1 year from fentanyl-- preventable. The President is doing everything he can to stop it with drug boats, with the Caribbean, with the northern border, with the southern border. Crickets. You could hear a pin drop in here. Not a word from them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding.

My friend was talking about rigging the rules. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are all too happy to have district judges rig the rules to stop the President of the United States from being able to defend our country.

Just last week, within close proximity to my house in Dripping Springs, Texas, 47 individuals who are affiliated with the gang Tren de Aragua were found by ICE. Right down the road in suburban Austin, Texas, 47 people, including 9 children, were found in what was a stash house, moving narcotics through it.

This is the same gang that killed Jocelyn Nungaray last summer. This is the same gang that was torturing and driving fear into the hearts of the people in Aurora, Colorado, in the apartment complexes that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge. These are all the same people who are being allowed to vote, the same people that we were elected in November to remove from the country.

The President of the United States as Commander in Chief in defending the United States and as the Chief Executive is carrying out the laws to remove dangerous individuals from the United States of America. Then, an activist district judge in the District of Columbia decided that, in his view, he had to step in. He had to step in to try to assert his jurisdiction where it did not belong to try to stop the President of the United States from removing dangerous gang members who are killing Americans.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the United States Supreme Court said: Stop. You don't get to do that, Mr. District Judge in D.C. If you are going to do this, you have to do this in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, that was the whole point.

Just today, we had another ruling out of the Supreme Court slapping down yet another activist judge.

What are we doing, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) asks. What are we doing as Republicans? We are putting forward language today that would stop rogue district judges from carrying out nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders and who are trying to effectively legislate from the bench.

Mr. Speaker, we are not alone in that position. The Biden administration's solicitor general in 2024 told the Supreme Court: ``A court of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it.''

In 2022, that same solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to address nationwide injunctions.

In 2022, Justice Elena Kagan spoke out against the ability of a single judge to stop implementation of a policy across the country.

Lo and behold, we are advancing bipartisan work to address a bipartisan problem that Democrats have very clearly identified. The only difference now is that Donald Trump is in the White House instead of Joe Biden.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding additional time.

Mr. Speaker, again, Republicans have brought forward a rule containing a bill that addresses a problem that Democrats have identified as a problem, to say that the parties before the court are the only ones to whom it should apply and allows for a mechanism to achieve nationwide injunctions through a three-judge panel.

Mr. Speaker, we are also bringing to the floor a bill that will say that only American citizens should vote in American elections. The controversy--oh, my gosh--the bloodletting, that we might say in the United States House of Representatives that only American citizens should be able to vote in American elections. Yet, that is what we are doing.

Republicans are responding to an American people who are tired of the previous administration that was allowing illegals to come into our country, kill our citizens, vote in our elections, and undermine our country. We are addressing their concerns, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to address it.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding me time.