NORRA of 2025

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1526.

I heard the majority was bringing legislation forward to clean up a major policy crisis taking place within the first 100 days of the Trump administration, and that sounded pretty good to me because we are drowning in crises. The problem is that this bill does not address any of the real major policy crises of the first 100 days that Trump has caused for America. They are wasting our time with this bill by misdiagnosing and mislabeling the judicial response to these crises as a crisis itself.

The whole country is reeling right now from the economic disaster Trump has plunged us into. He destroyed more than $10 trillion in American wealth in 1 single week, and then he went golfing and bragged to America about winning the tournament at his own golf course. Madam Speaker, that is like bragging about being endorsed by your own campaign manager.

With so much winning, the country can hardly stand how much winning Trump is doing for himself, Elon Musk, and his billionaire Cabinet. Perhaps he could have yelled fore on the fareway so tens of millions of Americans could have taken our retirement savings out of the stock market before he hit us in the head with a golf ball.

Trump's ruinous tariffs have crushed our relationships with democratic allies and loyal trade partners like Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Germany, and France while delicately carving out an exception for Trump's friends in the home office back in Russia.

When asked why Putin uniquely escapes the wrath of Trump's global trade war, we are told it is because Trump doesn't want to interfere with the negotiations taking place between Russia and Ukraine for a cease-fire, an explanation that might have somewhat more force if Trump had not made sure that the tariffs do apply to Ukraine as they do.

The basis for this most imbecilic and destructive trade war in the history of the world is the profound economic research and policy writings of one Ron Vara, a completely fictional economist conjured up by Trump adviser Peter Navarro, a real person whom Elon Musk just called a moron and dumb as a sack of bricks.

Navarro's last name, delightfully, is an anagram for Ron Vara. Madam Speaker, you can try this yourself at home. Navarro turns into Ron Vara. Navarro figured that out himself. That is perhaps the greatest achievement of the Trump administration so far. What an enchanting and clever basis upon which to crash the economy of the United States of America.

Despite the fact that Congress, not the President, has the power to regulate international commerce and legislate tariffs, our GOP colleagues don't even want to have one hearing on the breathtaking economic folly and wreckage of this fling into the abyss of trade war with the world, much less do they want to do anything to reverse this policy nightmare for tens of millions of businesspeople, farmers, workers, retirees, and consumers being throttled by this historic, self-inflicted wound.

No, today they want to talk about the real emergency, which is the power of the United States district courts to issue universal injunctions rather than just injunctions that apply to the specific parties in the case.

It seems like a rather boutique and esoteric issue to raise in the middle of an economic catastrophe that they just foisted upon America, but there is a method to the madness. You see, Madam Speaker, Federal judges have issued at least 68 court orders that block or pause the administration's lawlessness to prevent irreparable harm in the country from his unconstitutional actions. The judges deciding here were appointed by five different Presidents, both Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents, in 11 different district courts across seven circuits. The judges have explained in painstaking detail what is unlawful about Trump's executive orders and actions.

Trump has offered no substantive critique of their legal reasoning, but he and Musk still want the judges impeached. They say they should be removed from office simply for striking down the President's illegal policies, which is odd given that Trump and his party demanded for 4 years that Federal judges strike down President Biden's policies like student loan forgiveness or immigration policies or EPA action on climate change.

They seem to embrace Marbury v. Madison and judicial review of Democratic Presidential actions but not of Republican actions. They say that is because Trump just won an election. He beat Kamala Harris by 2 million votes.

Guess what, Madam Speaker. Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, and that didn't stop them from suing to stop numerous Biden policies they thought were unlawful. Sometimes they won, and sometimes they lost. It is the same now. Nearly 160 cases have been brought against Trump and Musk's actions. Trump has won some, and he has lost some.

However, our colleagues protest that Trump is different because the courts have issued relief in at least 57 different cases, a record number of cases in American history, at record speed. That is true, but if it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100 days, recall that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal actions at a breathtaking velocity never seen before in U.S. history.

As of today, he has already issued 111 executive orders in less than 100 days. Biden issued 162 in all 4 years. Trump can issue as many as he wants, but he has got to make them constitutional because if they are not, they are going to get struck down.

When Trump denounces the judges as radical left judges and lunatics who have gone rogue like Judge Boasberg, he is just advertising his complete ignorance of the Federal bench.

Judge Boasberg is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court, first nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, who was Justice Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale and a pillar of the conservative bar.

We have impeached only 15 judges in U.S. history, always for serious misconduct like taking bribes, embezzlement, corruption, and habitual drunkenness on the bench. It was never because of a doctrinal disagreement and never because of a judge's legal ruling. As Chief Justice Roberts said a few weeks ago, the proper response in our democracy to a judicial decision that you disagree with is to appeal the ruling, not impeach the judge.

Donald Trump has gotten some relief in some of his cases already. The system is working. We don't need to turn the whole world upside down to distract from the economic calamities they have brought upon us.

All this would be fun and games except the rhetorical assault by Trump and Musk and our colleagues against the judiciary has turned into something far more sinister in some quarters: death threats, bomb threats, and online intimidation and harassment of judges. These judges are currently targets of an onslaught of social media taunts and attacks that call for their exile to GTMO or label them a national security threat or traitors. Even worse, this campaign of vilification has spread to their families, including attacks on a Federal judge's daughter who had her photo and place of work posted on a social media site by Elon Musk to his 290 million followers. These threats followed an actual bomb threat targeting the sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It is a dangerous situation.

Now our colleagues want to pass the No Rogue Rulings Act which would effectively ban Federal district courts from providing nationwide relief against unlawful actions by the administration. Litigants could request injunctive relief only with respect themselves.

So, for example, if the President establishes a church or bans newspapers or imposes martial law, then each citizen in America would have to bring his or her own case because the courts would not be able to rule to strike down unconstitutional actions generally. That is patently absurd, and we are going to be able to explain how this legislation is a massive distraction

from the issues that are really facing America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record ``The Lost History of the `Universal' Injunction,'' a law review article by Mila Sohoni refuting what was just stated by the gentleman. The universal injunction, the nationwide injunction, goes back at least to 1913 and has been used repeatedly over the last century.

[From the Harvard Law Review]

The Lost History of the ``Universal'' Injunction

(Mila Sohoni)

The issuance of injunctions that reach beyond just the

plaintiffs has recently become the subject of a mounting wave

of censorious commentary, including by members of Congress, a

Supreme Court Justice, the Solicitor General, the Attorney

General, and the President. Critics of these ``universal''

injunctions have claimed that such injunctions are a recent

invention and that they exceed the power conferred by Article

III to decide ``Cases[ ] in . . . Equity.'' This Article

rebuts the proposition that the universal injunction is a

recent invention and that it violates Article III or the

traditional limits of equity as practiced in the federal

courts. As far back as 1913, the Supreme Court itself

enjoined federal officers from enforcing a federal statute

not just against the plaintiff, but against anyone, until the

Court had decided the case. If the Supreme Court can issue a

universal injunction against enforcement of a federal law,

then--as an Article III matter--so can a lower federal court.

Moreover, lower federal courts have been issuing injunctions

that reach beyond the plaintiffs as to state laws in cases

that date back more than a century, and the Supreme Court has

repeatedly approved of these injunctions. If Article III

allows such injunctions as to state laws, it a fortiori

allows such injunctions as to federal laws. Mapping these and

other pieces of the lost history of the universal injunction,

this Article demonstrates that the Article III objection to

the universal injunction should be retired and that the

unfolding efforts to outright strip the federal courts of the

tool of the universal injunction--whether by statutory fiat

or by a judicial redefinition of Article III--should halt.

But I would speak to the consciences of honorable men, and

ask, how they can venture . . . to recommend changes, which

may cut deep into the quick of remedial justice . . . .

Surely, they need not be told, how slow every good system of

laws must be in consolidating; and how easily the rashness of

an hour may destroy, what ages have scarcely cemented in a

solid form.

--Joseph Story, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1812-

1845)

introduction

The Trump Administration and the Obama Administration do

not seem to have much in common. But they have had one shared

foe: the ``universal'' injunction. Across both

administrations, federal district courts have issued a slew

of injunctions blocking the executive branch from enforcing

federal laws, regulations, or policies ``not only against the

plaintiff, but also against anyone,'' even in cases not

certified as class actions.

The federal courts' power to issue such injunctions--which

are variously called ``national,'' ``nationwide,''

``universal,'' and even ``cosmic''--is now under fire. In

Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas concurred separately to urge

the Court to take up the question of the legality of such

injunctions, suggesting that they are a modern innovation and

that they might fall outside the judicial power of Article

III courts. In 2018, the House Judiciary Committee of the

115th Congress released a markup of the Injunctive Authority

Clarification Act, which would curtail the authority of

federal courts to issue such injunctions.

In December 2018, the Solicitor General's Office called for

the Court to ``arrest'' this ``disturbing but accelerating

trend,'' which it cast as a ``rapidly expanding threat to the

respect that each coordinate Branch of our Nation's

government owes the others.'' In guidelines to Department of

Justice civil litigators, former Attorney General Jeff

Sessions referred to such injunctions as ``abuses of judicial

power,'' a ``threat[ ]'' to ``the rule of law,'' a ``danger

to our constitutional order,'' and a ``kind of judicial

activism [that] did not happen a single time in our first 175

years as a nation.'' Several states--including states that

earlier sought and won such injunctions--now contend that

``universal injunctions contradict the rest of Anglo-American

jurisprudence.'' The Trump White House, in its

characteristically measured tones, has hinted that the

practice is perhaps not beyond criticism. A growing vein of

scholarship concerning such injunctions has also developed.

This Article demonstrates that the universal injunction is

a tool with a more venerable lineage than heretofore

recognized. Surveying cases involving both state and federal

law and drawing on decisions by courts at all three levels of

the federal judicial hierarchy, this Article shows that

Article III courts have issued injunctions that extend beyond

just the plaintiff for well over a century. Building on this

lost history, this Article argues that the Article III

objection to the universal injunction should be retired and

that legislative efforts to outright strip the federal courts

of the substantive power to grant such injunctions should

halt.

Let us begin with the history. The universal injunction

against federal law did not ``emerg[e] for the first time in

the 1960s,'' as many critics of the universal injunction have

claimed. The Court itself issued a universal injunction in

1913, in the months preceding its opinion in Lewis Publishing

Co. v. Morgan, when it temporarily enjoined a federal statute

from being enforced not just against the plaintiffs but also

against ``other newspaper publishers.'' In the following

decade, the Court issued two other preliminary injunctions

that barred a federal law's enforcement beyond the plaintiffs

within a single judicial district, and in one of those cases

it specified that similarly broad final relief should issue.

Moreover, at least as far back as 1916, three-judge federal

courts issued injunctions against the enforcement of laws

that reached beyond the plaintiffs in those suits. The laws

thereby enjoined were state laws, not federal laws, but the

injunctions possessed the characteristic that matters most to

the Article III debate over the injunctive power: those

injunctions gave sweeping protection to nonplaintiffs who

would otherwise have been vulnerable to the law's

enforcement. When the state defendants in those suits

appealed directly to the Supreme Court--as procedural law at

the time allowed them to do--the Court on several occasions

affirmed the lower courts' injunctions, and sometimes did so

in single-sentence, unanimous, per curiam decisions. In one

important (though not unique) instance--Pierce v. Society of

Sisters--the Court affirmed a universal injunction barring

the enforcement of Oregon's compulsory public-schooling law

in a landmark precedent that remains good law to this day.

Not long thereafter, the universal injunction was brought

to bear upon federal agency action. In 1939, the D.C. Circuit

issued a universal injunction against federal agency action

in Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins. That highly consequential

decree altered the federal government's purchasing activities

with respect to the iron and steel industries for a whole

year in the run-up to America's entry into World War II. When

the Supreme Court took up the case in Perkins v. Lukens Steel

Co., the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and

were thus not entitled to seek any kind of relief, the steel

companies' suit, the Court held, ``contains no semblance of

these elements which go to make up a litigable controversy as

our law knows the concept.'' Crucially, Perkins left intact

the propriety of injunctions reaching beyond the plaintiffs

as remedies in cases brought by plaintiffs with standing,

indeed, Perkins is bookended by decisions in which the Court

continued to approve that practice. In Hague v. CIO, less

than a year before Perkins, the Court affirmed an injunction

that protected those who acted in sympathy with the

plaintiffs from enforcement of a city law; in West Virginia

State Board of Education v. Barnette, shortly after Perkins,

the Court affirmed an injunction that reached beyond both the

plaintiffs' children and the alleged plaintiff class to

shield ``any other children having religious scruples'' from

a state law requiring students to salute the American flag.

This history has important implications for how we should

understand Article III. Today, critics of the universal

injunction contend that Article III courts should adhere--or,

as they sometimes frame it, revert--to the rule that

injunctions must be solely ``plaintiff-protective.'' They

have urged the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules to

create such a rule by amending the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedures. They have pressed Congress to institute such a

rule by statute--and indeed, the 115th Congress lately

considered doing just that, holding hearings on whether it

should forbid what the bill at issue styled as ``orders

purporting to restrain enforcement against non-parties''

in cases not certified as Rule 23 class actions. Justice

Thomas, as noted, has suggested that Article III may

forbid injunctions that reach beyond the plaintiffs.

We must be clear about one thing: it would be a sharp

departure from precedent and practice to treat Article III as

requiring the equitable remedial powers of federal courts to

be cabined in that manner. Article III confers a singular

power upon all federal courts to decide ``Cases[ ] in . . .

Equity.'' It does not allocate different types of equitable

remedial power to courts at different levels of the federal

judicial hierarchy, and it draws no line between state and

federal government defendants. That singular judicial power

must be uniformly interpreted, and its scope cannot sensibly

be regarded as hinging on the surmounting of hurdles to class

certification that were not created until 1966. If the

Supreme Court can issue a universal injunction against

enforcement of a federal law in a suit by a single plaintiff,

then so can a federal district court as an Article III

matter. If a federal district court issue a universal

injunction against enforcement of a state law in a suit by a

single plaintiff, a federal district court must also have the

power to issue such an injunction against enforcement of a

federal law as an Article III matter. There is only one

``judicial Power,'' and that power includes the power to

issue injunctions that protect those who are not plaintiffs.

Finally, some critics of the universal injunction have

invoked a strict form of originalism in support of their case

against that remedy. But the logic of that argument would

extend well beyond the universal injunction. At the time of

the Founding,

English officers were kept to heel not with injunctions

issued by the Chancellor in equity, but instead with common

law damages suits or ``prerogative'' writs (mandamus, quo

warranto, and so on) issued by the King's Bench--a common law

court. And American federal courts did not issue ``Young-

type'' injunctions against enforcement suits brought by state

and federal officers until well after the Founding. A

strictly originalist approach to the judicial power in equity

would therefore jettison not just the universal injunction--

it would equally undercut the propriety of an injunction that

protected just a single plaintiff from enforcement of even an

egregiously unconstitutional law by a government officer.

Such a straitened conception of the equitable power of

Article III courts cannot be squared with either a century-

plus of practice or with ``the implicit policies embodied in

Article III'' itself. Nor, fortunately, is that result

demanded by Grupo Mexicana de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond

Fund, Inc., for that decision rested not only on the meaning

of equity in England in 1789, but also on how American

federal courts treated that concept in decisions extending

through the twentieth century. Measured by that yardstick,

the universal injunction against federal law is

constitutionally legitimate.

At bottom, the current debate over the universal injunction

is as much a debate over the proper role of the federal

courts as it is a debate over the arcana of equitable

remedies. May courts decide disputes only for the parties

before them, or may they declare the law for nonparties, too?

This Article's contribution to that evergreen debate is to

show how, in the period from 1890 to 1943, the law-

declaration model animated and guided the actions of federal

courts as they issued decrees on myriad questions of public

law. Expanding the frame of our inquiry even by this much

reveals that the injunction reaching beyond the plaintiffs--

and the law-declaration model of the judicial power that this

remedy implies--is not some late-blooming efflorescence of

post-Warren Court judicial hubris. Rather, it is a tool that

developed in tandem with, and in support of, the regime of

routinized judicial review of state and federal official

action that we continue to live under today. Our government

is not a monarchy, and our federal judges are not Westminster

chancellors; in no small part, the one has followed from the

other.

The Article proceeds in six Parts. Part I maps how the

current discourse concerning universal injunctions has

gerrymandered the analysis of judicial power and has thereby

cast undue doubt on the propriety of this remedy. Part II

explores how the Supreme Court in the 1890s endorsed an

expansive view of the powers of federal courts to control the

rights of nonparties through injunctive decrees. Part III

describes injunctions against enforcement of federal statutes

issued by the Court itself in the 1910s and 1920s and

examines their implications for the Article III analysis.

Part IV describes injunctions against enforcement of state

law issued by lower federal courts from the 1910s through the

1930s and then similarly outlines their implications for the

Article III analysis. Part V turns to federal agency action,

focusing specifically on Perkins and two cases involving

state and local laws that are important for understanding

Perkins; this Part spans the 1939-1943 period.

Mr. Speaker, the link to the entire document can be found here: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/920- 1009__Online.pdf.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.

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

Both Democrats and some Republicans have assailed the clearly unlawful nature of this trade war instituted by President Trump based on tariffs against the entire world except for Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Congress has the power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate commerce internationally. We have the power over tariffs.

The President purportedly is asserting powers under a statute which applies to emergencies in extraordinary and unusual situations. Then he said this has been going on for decade after decade.

Well, then how could that be an emergency? How could that be extraordinary and unusual?

There will be a lawsuit on this, and what our colleagues are saying is that if there is a bipartisan lawsuit that goes to court which stops these tariffs that are crippling businesses and farmers and wiping out people's retirements across the country, and if they succeed in one district, say, in Minnesota or Wisconsin or New York, you have to go to every one of 94 different districts in the country to get the benefit of that. That is what they want to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, nationwide injunctions are something that my friends across the aisle not only endorsed but took liberal advantage of in the last administration.

Remember Judge Matt Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas? They were lining up around the block to go forum shopping in his little district because he was the only judge to get cases against Biden there. Then Republicans praised the nationwide injunctions he issued.

The gentleman who just spoke signed a letter in praise of a nationwide injunction that was offered by Judge

Kacsmaryk. If the gentleman wants to change his position, fine, but please explain to us why the position has changed since the gentleman was praising nationwide injunctions in the last administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his astute observations there and say that Judge Kacsmaryk was reversed several times by higher courts.

We never came out and said, therefore, let's ban nationwide injunctions. We did say we should reform judge shopping and forum shopping. That is the real problem. Yet, it is not a problem if there is a nationwide crisis created by illegal action by an executive that a judge has the authority to counter that with an injunction and then it gets appealed up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just to answer a couple of things raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my friend.

First of all, that is not what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court simply said that this was not a case that should be going through the Administrative Procedure Act under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It should be done through a habeas corpus in the district of confinement, in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Supreme Court affirmed that there must be due process for people who were illegally taken out of this country and sent to El Salvador.

Secondly, the gentleman gives us a false choice when he says: Who gets to decide? Is it the person who puts his name on the ballot and goes out and campaigns, or is it an unelected Federal district judge?

Decide what? If we are talking about deciding the constitutionality of a law, obviously it is the judge under Marbury v. Madison. I know that the distinguished gentleman from the Committee on the Judiciary knows that the fact that Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris by 2 million votes is neither here, nor there.

Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by 7 million votes, and they still went to court pretty much on a weekly basis to try to get Joe Biden's legislation and his programs struck down. The majority believed in judicial review then. We should understand that it is very convenient for Republicans to say, all of a sudden, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't believe in judicial review just because they have the Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has already rejected at least two of the actions that Donald Trump has taken since he got in. One was firing the executive director of the Office of Special Counsel. He was reinstated.

The other was reinstating a $2.1 billion aid grant that was essentially impounded and diverted by the administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, about the remarks he just made.

He is correct that the President, of course, like Members of Congress, must also interpret and enforce the Constitution. In fact, that is the core part of the President's job, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, says Article II, not distorted or rewritten, but to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That doesn't negate the fact that under Marbury v. Madison, it is emphatically the province and the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is in the event of an actual case or controversy.

The gentleman invoked George Washington. There is a beautiful portrait of Washington, the Trumbull portrait, that we have in the rotunda and it is a picture of George Washington surrendering his commission as the general of the Continental Forces, which Napoleon said made him the greatest man ever, that he could have stayed on as a dictator forever, and he gave up his power. He could have been President forever, but he gave up his power.

When we compare that to Donald Trump who is saying he is going to run for an unconstitutional and, yes, an illegal third term, that would be an illegal third term for him to run again to try to take office, so that is why we have courts in order to cabin the potentially limitless ambitions of Presidents. That is why we don't have kings; we have Presidents here.

Secondly, there seems to be a myth on the other side that if a President campaigns on something, then it is constitutional and the courts can't strike it down. So if the President campaigns on running again for a third term, then it is okay. Where does it say that in the Constitution? That can't be right. We are all bound by the Constitution no matter what we say during the campaign. A person could run around saying, ``I am going to be king,'' or if President Trump said, ``I will be dictator on day one.'' No, you will not be dictator on day one under the Constitution of the United States.

Why did the judge tell the administration to turn the planes around? Because of the two most beautiful words in the English language, ``due process.'' Because what they can do to noncitizens, they can do to citizens. If they can sweep anybody off the street and say we are going to send you to a torturous prison in El Salvador without any kind of hearing at all, it can happen to citizens as well as noncitizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, it occurs to me that Bonnie and Clyde and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid should have just denounced traditional activism and moved to change the Federal rules of civil procedure: Always better to blame the judge than to take responsibility for your own unlawful actions.

Mr. Speaker, I will close by quoting Thomas Jefferson who said during the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts: ``A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles.''

In the meantime, we are suffering the horrors and malignities of this period, but if the game runs against us sometimes as it will, we must have patience because it is a game where principles are at stake.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 405 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule providing for consideration of three pieces of legislation--H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and H.R. 2255--which will all be 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 the Judiciary or their respective designees. Additionally, the rule provides each with a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are here in Washington this week to continue to work on behalf of the American people. This is, in fact, Police Week, but we have been busy this year, this Congress delivering for the American people.

In this Congress so far, we have passed legislation to secure our elections, H.R. 222, the SAVE Act; hold rogue activist judges accountable, H.R. 1526; bring transparency to institutes of higher education, H.R. 1048; make changes to our border with the Laken Riley Act and the HALT Fentanyl Act; and to repeal the Biden-era harmful environmental regulations by passing what we call Congressional Review Acts to undo the damage of the Biden administration.

As Republicans continue to work on behalf of the American people and finalize the reconciliation products we are working on currently, we are also here to recognize National Police Week and the thousands of law enforcement officers who wake up every day to step on that thin blue line to defend and protect us.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 15 as Peace Officer Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week.

Yesterday, my staff and I got the opportunity to welcome police officers from New Braunfels, Texas, and hear about the challenges they face every day. I talk to the men and women in blue virtually every day in the district that I represent, as I know many of my colleagues do.

My grandfather was the chief of police of a small west Texas town called Sweetwater. I was blessed to work in the United States Attorney's office and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, working every day with law enforcement. What they do matters for the peace and security of our country. Our Republic depends on having security on our streets.

There are thousands of stories that I can share about the daily heroism of law enforcement officers across the country, hundreds I could share even in the district I represent.

On February 16, 2024, Austin Police Department officers Dalton Schroeder and Jason Wright responded to 4-year-old William Martinez Romero, who was choking. The officers quickly jumped into action. Body cam footage shows Officer Schroeder run to his cruiser to grab an antichoking device he bought with his own money to be prepared for situations just like this, while Officer Wright started supporting William with back blows. They saved his life that day.

We must also remember that Police Week honors fallen peace officers, including one officer who died in the line of duty, Austin Police Department Senior Officer Jorge Pastore died in action November 11, 2023, responding to a domestic violence call in South Austin. Hostages were held inside a home, and when officers attempted to enter, gunfire started to go off. The SWAT team was called in to help distract the suspect, one being Officer Pastore, who was trying to rescue the victims.

I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say we couldn't be more excited to welcome tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from around the country to D.C. this week.

Let's be clear: House Republicans and President Trump are mobilized to restore order and sanity in the United States, something that had been lacking for years.

I remember the days, as I know my colleagues do, in 2020 when there were fires and destruction rampant across the country, as our cities were being burned to the ground and law enforcement was being targeted. It was unacceptable.

There are Members of this body, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who were encouraging it. They were undermining our law enforcement officers, making it more difficult for them to carry out their jobs, who were challenging them. It was important that we stood by them, and it is important now that the President and Republicans are standing by our law enforcement officers.

Americans suffered due to the amplification of that extreme rhetoric against law enforcement. The homicide rates stayed significantly higher through 2022 after massively skyrocketing in the wake of 2020.

The rule before us today is another step in helping law enforcement officers across the Nation which, after 4 years of a Biden-run Department of Justice targeting police departments, should be a welcome relief to our men and women in blue.

This week we will consider three pieces of legislation to support our brothers and sisters in law enforcement. H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025, which would allow Federal law enforcement officers the opportunity to purchase the service weapons they used before obtaining a new one; H.R. 2243, the LEOSA Reform Act, which amends the Gun-Free School Zones Act to provide an exemption for law enforcement officers certified under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry a concealed firearm in a gun- free school zone; and H.R. 2240, Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which would require the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress that includes data on attacks on law enforcement.

These bills are widely supported by law enforcement groups. The Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, National Association of Police Organizations, National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, and Sergeants Benevolent Association of the NYPD sent a letter on March 25, 2025, to the House Judiciary Committee urging support of these bills and advancement to the House floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about crime in the country that the parting shot of Joe Biden on January 19 was to commute the sentences of 2,500 Federal defendants he claimed were ``convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.''

Let's look at that. We have a situation where he reduced the sentence of a Buffalo man, Lairon Graham, 67. In 2023, he was convicted of organizing and heading a drug conspiracy to sell fentanyl, crack cocaine, and heroin. When police raided his home, they found fentanyl, crack, and cash. He also possessed a firearm. In addition to heading up the drug gang, Graham was also convicted of sex trafficking by force or coercion from 2013 to 2021.

Of course, this is on top of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanting to defend a Maryland man for being sent overseas after the guy was clearly moving people illegally, beating his girlfriend and wife, violating our laws, and here illegally. That is who they want to defend.

There are numerous other examples. Jaron Ruth, another Buffalo native, pleaded guilty in 2019 to selling drugs over a period of 3 years and possessing firearms. He had been charged with shooting a man in the chest during a burglary of the victim's home.

These are the kind of folks that Joe Biden was commuting as he exited stage left. We had another situation where he commuted the sentence of a gentleman who left prison after Biden commuted his sentence in the killing of two FBI agents. Is that who my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think they ought to be defending?

Can they answer the question of commuting the sentences of these violent criminals and putting them out on the streets, just as they voted against every measure we put forward to defend our borders and to stop the death and destruction of American citizens like Laken Riley or like Jocelyn Nungaray or those who have died at the hands of dangerous criminal cartels and gangs in our country?

What President Trump is doing is restoring the rule of law. What Republicans are doing is standing up in defense of law enforcement because we stand up in defense of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

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

What I would notice, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman complained about not having the amendment considered, but he offered the amendment about 1 hour before the Rules Committee met. So spare me the concern about whether or not we are considering amendments when we don't have the time to look at the amendment.

I would also note that when we are talking about these kinds of people, I went through a list of folks whom President Biden had commuted.

Here is another one. A Lubbock man, granted clemency by Biden, was arrested. The sheriff was absolutely angry about the former administration's decisions. The sheriff said that he felt angry after he found out a convicted criminal was being released back on the Lubbock streets early, that a convicted criminal is now back in law enforcement custody after violating his supervised release.

These are the kinds of folks whom we are putting back out on the streets, and we are having to arrest again the very people that President Biden put back out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McGuire).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that as we are considering this Police Week and we are talking about the safety and security of our streets, I would just note that two of our most dangerous States as measured by violent crime and property crime rates are the States of New Mexico and Colorado, which also happen to have Democrats controlling all levels of power.

I would note that last summer, the good people of Aurora, Colorado, were dealing with Tren de Aragua, who were engaging in violent activities in apartment complexes and demonstrating the violence that has led to the death of Americans, and the trafficking of dangerous narcotics and fentanyl. They literally took over their homes. I met with and talked to Cindy Romero from Aurora about what happened to her in her home and that my Democratic colleagues weren't even acknowledging that it was happening. They were just ignoring it.

Then Tren de Aragua moved to San Antonio and other places across the country. I want to give a shout-out to the Texas Department of Public Safety and all the great local law enforcement in Hays County, Texas. That is because just literally last week they converged together with the FBI to go identify and stop 47 individuals. Probably 14 of whom were a part of Tren de Aragua from all over the country. They had come into Austin to coordinate. They had drugs, narcotics, and children in a home near where I live in Dripping Springs, Texas.

Thanks to law enforcement we now have removed at least four of those individuals and are prosecuting others because we now have a law enforcement community who knows that the President of the United States is backing them, and a Republican House and a Republican Senate are backing them.

Local law enforcement are being backed instead of having leftist judges who are dismissing the crimes and putting dangerous criminals on the streets. When Joe Biden commutes sentences and puts dangerous criminals on the streets, the American people know who is actually standing up for law enforcement.

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

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

If we talk about standing up in defense of police, how can my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with a straight face that that is what they want to do when we had one Democrat from New York who said: I am not in favor of more police; I am actually in favor of defunding the police. We had another Congresswoman from New York who said: Defunding police means defunding police. I can go back, and the Record is replete with examples of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling for defunding the police. In fact, one of my colleagues from Texas was literally serving on the Austin City Council when they cut $150 million out of the Austin Police Department's budget, leaving their academy decimated, leaving them unable to field 911 calls, leaving violent crimes skyrocketing in the city of Austin, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were patently clear about their desire to defund the police and

side with violent mobs in the summer of 2020, when our cities were burning across the country.

Yes, we are standing up for the men and women in blue. Yes, we will defend them, but, no, we are not going to blindly support grants that are being used by NGOs to undermine the very police they are saying they are trying to support. For example, one grant to an NGO that was promoting prostitution and open borders, this is the kind of stuff that the American people sent us here to stop. This is the kind of stuff that they are proud of the President for using DOGE to identify and stop.

Yes, we are trying to defund those particularly bad grant programs, while we try to make sure that our local jurisdictions can fund police properly and have judges that will actually put bad guys in jail instead of letting them on the streets and a President that won't commute the sentences of 2,500 people, dozens or hundreds of whom were violent criminals and are now back out on the streets.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my Republican colleagues for bringing forward legislation in support of our law enforcement community.

I am proud of the fact that, in fact, this President is trying to focus resources where it will best provide security and safety on our streets and back our law enforcement community to actually target criminals, not fund ridiculous grants, not fund NGOs that are undermining our security, the very NGOs that are perpetuating the open borders; that are putting gangs in our communities, like TDA and MS-13, that lead directly to the death of Americans, death of Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, like Laken Riley, like Rachel Morin, like Kayla Hamilton; Americans that are no longer with us because of the policies of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because of wide-open borders, and because of tolerance of violent criminals, because of a Democrat President who has let violent criminals out on the street and commuted their sentences; because of radical leftist judges promoted by those that fund my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; like George Soros who have funded DAs that are letting criminals out on the streets in cities like San Antonio and Austin that I represent; like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have defunded the police time and time again and have defended that position.

For example, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that the defund the police movement is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services.

Another colleague said that the defund movement isn't new. Folks are just finally listening.

Defund the police, said a Democrat colleague.

Defunding the police isn't radical. It is real, said a former Democrat colleague and, as I said before, a colleague that literally voted on the Austin City Council to strip $150 million out of the police budget, leaving the Austin Police stranded, unable to do their job and the people of Austin unable to get the services that they deserve and pay taxes for, while their streets are made more violent and while criminals are allowed to roam free under the very aforementioned Soros DAs that refused to prosecute the criminals.

Everybody in America knows what is going on. Everybody in America gets the joke. They saw their cities burning in the summer of 2020. They saw the reality of what happens when you allow these radical Democratic policies to take root, and they want it to end.

They want common sense back. They want a President who will enforce the law and an FBI that will target criminals instead of the American people. They don't want to have a Federal Government that is weaponized against them. They don't want them to be targeted.

They want violent criminals off the streets. They want violent gangs off the streets. They want our borders to be secure. They want TDA out. They want MS-13 out. They want fentanyl off their streets.

The only way you can do that is to actually back up the people trying to enforce the law and actually stand with them in the enforcement of the law, not turn around and let all the criminals back out on the streets. Yet, that is what my colleagues perpetually want to do.

The fact of the matter is, the American people understand that this President, this Republican House, this Republican Senate, and Republican jurisdictions across the country stand for law enforcement. They stand for order. That is what they want. That is what they sent us here for.

We put together some bills this week that are focused on wishes of the people, the men and women in blue, like my grandfather, who served as chief of police in Sweetwater, Texas, and the many law enforcement I was proud to serve with and alongside in the Office of the Attorney General of Texas and in the United States Attorney's Office. We work with them on a regular basis.

When you talk to them, they cannot do their jobs if the radical leftist policies of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are allowed to continue to be perpetuated. You can't combat crime if you put the criminals back on the streets. You can't combat crime if you import criminals from dangerous prisons. You can't combat crime if your law enforcement agencies are targeting American citizens for political retribution rather than taking dangerous, violent criminals off the streets.

I rise in support of these bills. I rise in support of the rule. The legislation that we put forward will provide the value for our men and women in uniform that they have asked for. They have asked for the ability to keep the weapons that they had in service.

Why does that matter? I will tell you why it matters. My grandfather that I mentioned before died in 1949 of cancer. When my dad, a 7-year- old, had polio and my grandmother was a single mom in west Texas raising him and did all the tough things, didn't ask for any handouts, took two jobs, helped my dad go on to be the first to go to college--my dad is 82 years old. He is still alive. He is 82 and still manages to walk, barely.

My dad talks about his dad as a cop, and he pulls out his old .38, the .38 revolver that my grandfather had in service. That means something to the people who serve. It means something for them to be able to carry that with them and take it with them. It is no small thing.

Some of my colleagues dismiss it as not being important. I can tell you it is important to the people who are out there serving because they devote their lives to this cause.

When I take that .38 out of the safe and show it to my son, he is holding the .38 that his great-grandfather held and carried with him when he was policing the streets. I think that is a good thing.

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

An Amendment to H. Res. 405 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 33) directing the

Architect of the Capitol to install at a permanent location

on the western front of the United States Capitol an

honorific plaque listing the names of all of the officers of

the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police

Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal,

State, and local law enforcement agencies and protective

entities who responded to the violence that occurred at the

United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. All points of order

against consideration of the concurrent resolution are

waived. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as

read. All points of order against provisions in the

concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to

adoption without intervening motion except one hour of debate

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on House Administration or

their respective designees.

Sec 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H. Con. Res. 33.

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

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, as every day, I stand in honor of our police and our law enforcement. I often say to those who serve that to serve is an act of love. I recognize the love of those who step up to put their lives on the line and to put their lives in a place of danger to protect us. I honor that service and that love.

Today, like last night, I heard an outrageous lie about which party supports law enforcement. Let's look at

the facts. Republican President Donald Trump's proposed budget will slash funding for the ATF and Drug Enforcement Administration, fire FBI employees, wipe out community policing grants, and gut civil rights enforcement.

Trump's budget doesn't support local law enforcement. It hurts them.

In my rural district, local law enforcement actually needs more support. I am outraged when Republicans say Federal help is duplicative, which is what they said last night in the Rules Committee.

I have spoken with the police officers and sheriffs who traverse thousands of miles of bumpy rural roads in my district. Rio Arriba County, for example, is bigger than the State of Connecticut, yet it has fewer than two dozen police officers.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what helps a small, rural police department like Rio Arriba? Do you know what the sheriffs need? They need support from the FBI and Federal law enforcement. FBI comes in and helps them solve crimes.

Tribal law enforcement also relies on the FBI. Tribal leaders frequently describe the long wait times for police to arrive and the countless criminal investigations left unsolved because there aren't enough FBI agents.

Mr. Speaker, when you cut funding for the FBI, as Republican President Trump proposes in his budget, you are not cutting duplicative funding. You are cutting essential investigative services. It is a guarantee that crimes will go unsolved.

The partnership between law enforcement agencies at all levels is critical to keep our communities safe. From the sheriff in Rio Arriba to the Capitol Police officers right outside these doors, each plays an important role. Unfortunately, not everybody respects all of our law enforcement officers.

In this very building, January 6 insurrectionists brutally attacked the Capitol Police and law enforcement officers from multiple jurisdictions. More than 140 police suffered injuries and went to the hospital. Five officers died. Then, President Trump pardoned the violent thugs who battered those police officers. It is a shame.

Every day, we walk by our dedicated Capitol Police, yet very few Republicans have the courage to condemn the pardons of the violent thugs who beat the police. Last night during Rules, we couldn't even get a Republican who is a former prosecutor to condemn the pardons-- more shame. If Republicans truly backed the blue, they would all denounce those pardons.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Texas condemned those pardons. Is he willing to do so now?

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to what Americans are focused on right now and what the thousands of callers to congressional offices, Republican and Democratic, are worried about. It is Republican cuts to Medicaid.

This is a big week for Republicans. As reported in Punchbowl, it is their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.

This week in the dead of night while America was sleeping, Republican committees took a sledgehammer to lifesaving programs like Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what is happening. Democrats fought all night to save 8.6 million Americans from losing access to Medicaid. That doesn't include the 4.2 million Americans who will start paying a whole lot more for their healthcare premiums so big corporations can get their tax deductions.

Republicans voted down every single amendment that Democrats offered to protect Medicaid. Let me remind everybody that in more than 25 districts, more than a third of the constituents rely on Medicaid. That includes Republican Nick Begich's and Robert Bresnahan's districts. Not a single Republican had the courage to stand up for their constituents.

The people are showing up in our offices to demand that Republicans listen to them. Some are protesting in their wheelchairs.

Yesterday, I spoke to a disabled woman named Julie outside the committee markup. Thirty-five years ago, Julie crawled up the House steps to demand that Congress pass the Americans with Disabilities Act. She is now back to beg for the bare minimum. She told me that she doesn't trust Republicans to protect her healthcare. Based on their votes, she is right.

Congress listened to her plea 35 years ago. Now, the wealthy interests and Trump's pressure are just too much. Republicans won't listen to a word from Julie or the 80 disabled advocates who came with her. She and other advocates are asking them to protect Medicaid and to protect the services they need. Even though they are in wheelchairs, they are not voiceless and will show up with their power. If that doesn't break our hearts, I don't know what will.

We have a broken system that prioritizes the wealthy, corruption, and loyalty to President Trump over the health and well-being of people like Julie. There are 8.6 million people who will suffer because Republicans took their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.

Republicans may be gleeful, but Americans will be tearful. Remember, congressional Republicans will lie over and over and say this is about rooting out fraud. No, it is not. It is about giving permanent tax cuts to the oligarchs. In fact, the top 20 percent of income earners will get 68 percent of the benefits in their bill.

Make no mistake that people will die as a result of these cuts. Families will suffer. Many will go broke thanks to medical bills, while millionaires get money for more yachts. Do they really need any more yachts?

Mr. Speaker, getting back to law enforcement, do you know the other things that sheriffs in my district need to respond to crime and to keep people alive? They need rural hospitals. When Republicans strip $715 billion from Medicaid, no matter how they try to paint that pig, they will be eliminating rural hospitals and emergency rooms.

When they do that, police officers in rural areas in places like Chama, New Mexico, in my district will have to drive 1\1/2\ to 2 hours to the nearest emergency room. Ask any first responder: The quicker somebody gets to an emergency room, the more likely they are to survive. When life or death is a matter of minutes, what Republicans are doing this week is deadly.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really wondering what kind of people they want to defend over there. Let's talk about those pardons. Let's talk about the fact that this isn't something that happened over there. This happened in this Capitol. Those violent offenders were violent before they got there.

Let me talk about a couple of them. Do my colleagues want to defend Steven Cappuccio? He was convicted of six felonies, including assaulting a police officer.

Mr. Speaker, he was together with David Dempsey. David Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years. He stomped on a police officer's head, and he struck an officer in the head with a metal crutch.

This is the kind of person the Republicans want to defend.

Enrique Tarrio, a former national leader of the Proud Boys and a domestic terrorist, was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Guy Reffitt, somebody who brought a gun, zip ties, and body armor, was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Not only that, they have gone after their pardons, and they haven't stopped the criminal spree.

A Houston man was pardoned by Trump and then arrested on sex charges.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Houston man pardoned by Trump arrested on child sex charge.''

This happens over and over again. They seem unwilling to stand up for the Capitol Police whom they walk by every day.

They refuse to put up the plaque that is, by law, honoring them.

I wonder if they ever even say: I am sorry. I am sorry that President Trump pardoned the people who beat you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Con. Res. 33.

This measure will ensure that the plaque honoring the brave police officers who defended us on January 6 is hung in the Capitol as required by law.

Mr. Speaker, you know it is Police Week, but Republicans for some reason refuse to put up the plaque honoring the heroic efforts by U.S. Capitol Police and other local and Federal law officers who defended us and our democracy on January 6.

It is not a scary thing. The plaque looks like this.

Don't you agree, Mr. Speaker?

It is lovely. It recognizes their heroic efforts, and it is the law. It was signed into law by the President that this plaque goes up.

What are they afraid of?

Why don't they want to honor the Capitol Police and other law enforcement officers who were beaten and battered?

Why is their support for police conditional?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), to speak more to this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredibly ironic when my colleague talks about President Trump backing law enforcement.

Last night in the Rules Committee, their Republican colleague, Mr. Knott, noted that Republicans have not increased or passed legislation for law enforcement in the 119th Congress.

When Republicans back law enforcement, they should actually be passing the funding to support State law enforcement, to support that collaboration and coordination. At the same time we are seeing that Republicans are not saying a peep about the fact that President Trump is cutting existing resources.

Not only does he plan to cut the budget for law enforcement, he is cutting resources today. He has terminated $820 million worth of grants for public safety. He has cut $169 million in funding for community safety and violence reduction programs. He has cut $71.7 million in grants to policing and prosecution programs, including longstanding efforts to address violent crimes and acts of targeted violence.

It doesn't terminate there. The Trump administration terminated grants for policing and prosecution, for victim services, for juvenile justice and child protection, for substance abuse and mental health treatment, for correction, and for protecting and serving the women who have been raped and the children who have been abused. He has cut that funding.

I have spoken to the women who are administering those programs and who have called me in tears because the children they serve will not be receiving those Federal grants.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to this issue of the pardons that my colleague has referred to.

Once again, let's go back and think about how they have not objected to the pardons of the January 6, nor have they called for putting up the plaque to honor the law enforcement who served us that day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, a vote on the previous question is a vote to protect the police.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has mentioned all kinds of words and ideas, and he is putting all kinds of stuff out there, but he has not once mentioned the plaque.

The previous question is: Will you honor the police who defended us in this Chamber by doing a simple thing? That is putting up this plaque.

Mr. Speaker, what counts on the floor of this House is your vote. Let's look at what those votes have resulted in. Those votes say we should honor the police who suffered when the insurrectionists beat them, that we should honor the police who protected our democracy and indeed protected every single one of us. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, a House Member or a Senator, you were protected by the police.

Are you willing to vote for this? If you vote against the previous question, you are saying we will not do this simple act of respect.

Now, let's get to the idea of what did you actually vote on.

Democrats have the receipts. For fiscal year 2023, the last year that Democrats wrote the appropriations bill, we increased funding for grants to State and local law enforcement by $506 billion. All but nine House Republicans voted against that bill.

Remember, it is not what you say. It is what you do. What did you vote for? Democrats put forward bills to increase funding, and Republicans voted against it.

We also increased funding for the FBI by half a billion dollars. I already went through how important the FBI is for Tribal law enforcement; how much our rural and local officers rely on them to do the investigation. They have access to technology that our sheriffs do not. The FBI supports law enforcement in Indian country.

We need these resources, and I am incredibly insulted when the gentleman, my good friend from Texas, my neighbor, actually says of local law enforcement that these programs are a waste. Go and talk to the people who rely on them. They are not duplicative. They are not a waste. They are essential.

Let me do just one last little fact check on that. When you look at who has the most homicides and some of the highest crime rates, it is indeed Republican States. Yes, it is unfortunate, and it is something we need to work on. Democrats raise this issue all the time, but the highest levels of crime and homicides are--let me go through those States--Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, sadly, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, South Carolina. See a little trend there? It is actually Republicans. Don't come and talk to us about that. It is dangerous to live and work in many Republican-led States.

Let's get back to what we do to honor and respect law enforcement on this Police Week.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have heard a lot of claims today, but here is what remains true. Democrats support law enforcement, not just with words, but with action, with our votes. We back them with funding, with resources, and, importantly, with respect.

That is why, under Democratic leadership, we increased funding for local and Federal law enforcement, including the very FBI that solves crimes in our rural and Tribal communities.

We don't just say these things. We show up for law enforcement. We stand with the Capitol Police who defended our democracy and our lives on January 6. We honor their courage. We mourn those who died, and we refuse to excuse the violent criminals who attacked them.

Unfortunately, too many of our Republican colleagues have chosen loyalty to Donald Trump over loyalty to the truth and over loyalty to the officers who keep us safe. You cannot say you support and respect law enforcement and stay silent as Trump pardons the violent criminals who battered the police on January 6. You can't say you support law enforcement when you refuse to do something as simple as hanging a plaque to honor their sacrifices.

While Republicans hold up empty slogans, Democrats fight for the health and dignity of the American people. We fought all night long to protect 8.6 million Americans from losing Medicaid, for the mother caring for a child with disabilities. We fought to protect the senior in rural New Mexico who has to drive hours just to see a doctor and will have to drive hours more when their Medicaid cuts destroy our world healthcare system. Why? So Republicans can hand out tax cuts to billionaires.

Do the millionaires and billionaires you are protecting really need more? They already have so much. They will drown and bury the veteran, the pregnant mother, the disabled worker with paperwork while they will just give away a bigger tax cut to the wealthiest among us. That just doesn't seem fair.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this is about values. This is about who do you value and what will you do when it actually comes down to vote?

Democrats value and choose to protect people like Julie, who crawled up these Capitol steps 35 years ago to demand dignity and now returns to beg us not to be forgotten. We are not forgetting her, and Democrats will not stop fighting for her and for millions more.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is an awful lot of stuff in this rule before us. However, let's be clear about one thing that is happening with this rule today, and that is Republican leadership is trying to overturn the democratic process of majority rule.

Mr. Speaker, 218 Members of this House, a majority of us, signed a petition from Congresswoman Luna, who is a Republican, allowing new moms and dads to vote remotely in Congress. When 218 of us sign a petition, the House rules say it can be brought up for a vote. However, a backdoor provision slipped into this rule is being used to shut down that process. This is an unprecedented step. Literally, it has never been done before in the history of the House--never.

Mr. Speaker, if you signed Representative Luna's discharge petition, if you agree it deserves a vote, and if you agree that a majority of the House should have the ability to bring up legislation through the discharge process, then you have to vote ``no'' on this rule. It is that simple.

Let's go back to the drawing board. Drop this provision.

By the way, this isn't remote voting for everyone. It is very simply about giving new parents the option to vote remotely if they so choose. That is it. That is what the Republican leadership is killing.

When we get to the actual bills Republicans are advancing here, Mr. Speaker, who wrote these Republican bills? A Wall Street lobbyist?

One of them is literally about letting big banks raise their fees. Who the hell asked for that, the CEO of Goldman Sachs?

People are getting screwed by big banks, by the Bank of America, by Morgan Stanley, and by Wells Fargo. This is about whose side you are on.

At least Republicans are up front about it. They want to help Wall Street. Democrats fought to make sure that overdraft fees are capped at $5, and these guys come down here with a straight face telling America what? That letting banks raise fees is a good thing.

I mean, Republican math is that higher fees are good for you, Mr. Speaker. Really? Somehow we all should want to pay more fees to big banks? Is this a joke? Is this a bad joke?

This next measure that they have in this rule lets Big Tech off the hook when people get ripped off. Did Elon Musk write this one?

These guys are coming down here with a straight face and telling us that Big Tech needs less regulation and that they need less oversight. Is this an April Fools' Day joke?

Here is the contrast: Democrats actually fought to make sure Big Tech is held accountable when things go wrong on Apple Pay, Cash App, or Zelle and when people are hacked, scammed, or defrauded.

What do Republicans want to do? They want to let Big Tech off the hook. If you lose money, too bad, Mr. Speaker. If your data gets sold, too bad. Whose side are Republicans on?

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not yours.

Maybe for April Fools' Day they could really change things up and actually stand up for working people. There is a crazy idea.

We have another bill to block nationwide injunctions when the government breaks the law. Here is a better idea: Why don't Republicans call up Donald Trump and tell him to stop breaking the law?

What an idea. Of course, it is a day that ends in Y, so Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill to take away peoples' voting rights.

Get this, Mr. Speaker, if you are a woman who changed her name after marriage, you will now need a certified birth certificate. However, if your

name is different than on that birth certificate, then you are going to have to come up with a whole bunch more documentation. Some of it will be costly.

Only Republicans would think voter disenfranchisement is somehow a good idea. This is all about making it more difficult for American citizens to vote. That is the real fraud. Donald Trump actually had a commission on voter fraud, and he disbanded it because he couldn't find any.

Republicans are defrauding American voters by making it more difficult to register. This stuff is right out of the authoritarian playbook straight from China, Russia, or Iran.

Republicans are acting like they are above the law. They are putting the rich and powerful first, undermining an independent judiciary, and undermining the right to vote. This is the road to authoritarianism, Mr. Speaker. Republicans are putting us in the fast lane to a dictatorship, and you can be damn sure that I am not going to be silent and that people on this side are not going to be silent. I am going to fight against these bills. I am going to fight to protect and uphold our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues here, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I respect the gentlewoman from Florida for her courage and for standing up on behalf of doing the right thing. I wish more people in this Chamber would do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen), who is the author of the parental proxy resolution that is trying to be killed by today's rule. She is a new mom herself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

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

After listening to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, my head is about to explode.

She talked about how disastrous it was when we had proxy voting during COVID. It was so disastrous that 162 Republicans actually voted by proxy.

She talked about how somehow it was unconstitutional, so unconstitutional that the current Speaker of the House, on multiple occasions, voted by proxy 39 different times.

She talks about people needing to show up to work. Well, people did show up to work and did participate in representing their constituents when we had proxy voting.

She doesn't seem to be that upset over the fact that Donald Trump conducts most of his business from the golf course in Mar-a-Lago. She doesn't seem to be very upset over the fact that the FBI Director, Kash Patel, is asking to work remotely from Las Vegas. She didn't seem that upset that there were people on the Rules Committee who used proxy voting to go to a CPAC convention to basically listen to political rhetoric from people on the extreme rightwing.

The bottom line is, Republicans love to talk about family values, but when given the chance to really support families, they turn their backs.

She talks about looking in Webster's dictionary, about the definition of ``congress.'' While she is at it, she should look up the definition of ``representation.'' There is nothing that says you shouldn't be able to represent your constituents because you just had a new baby.

The rule that we are considering right now is unprecedented because never in the history of the House has the Rules Committee tried to outright kill a discharge petition that was already signed by a majority of the House--never. This is precedent-setting.

Let me be clear: Discharge petitions are not a tool of the minority. That is true no matter how many times Republican leadership wants to say so.

In the past 30 years, before this month, a grand total of four discharge petitions have been sent by a majority of this House. Guess who introduced every single one of those four bills? Republican Members of a Republican majority. How did a majority of Republicans vote on those bills? They voted in support.

This isn't some Democratic tool that we use to make the other side take votes. This is a vital tool that has allowed Republicans with commonsense, bipartisan ideas to actually bring them forward against the opposition of their leadership.

By the way, even if you think this is a tool of the minority, once you set this precedent, that is it. Republicans are a few seats away from losing control of this Chamber. You might see this debate a lot differently in hindsight. If you want to protect your rights as Members of Congress, you should vote ``no'' here. You should especially vote ``no'' if you support the idea that new moms and dads should be allowed to vote remotely while taking care of a newborn.

Members worked across the aisle to draft a compromise version of remote voting for new parents. A bipartisan majority of this House signed a petition to bring this to the floor. Congresswoman Luna followed the rules, followed the rules that you set, the same rules that were in place when I was chair of this committee, the same basic rules that have been in place for a hundred years.

A majority of this Congress supports the Luna-Pettersen rule to allow new parents to vote remotely because it is common sense and because this is 2025, not 1925.

Members who stand with new parents and young families, Members who recognize we live in a modern world and don't show up to work with a horse and buggy, Members who believe in the democratic process, things like majority rule--what a radical idea--must defeat this antifamily, antidemocratic power grab of a resolution.

If you signed this discharge petition, you need to vote ``no'' on this rule. If you think it is important for individual Members to have any ability to move commonsense, bipartisan ideas forward, you need to vote ``no'' on this rule. A ``no'' vote is the only vote that lets that happen.

Congresswoman Luna convinced a majority in this House to support her idea. She deserves to get an up-or-down vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the Speaker for not being able to answer the question of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith). I have been on the Rules Committee for a long time, and I, quite frankly, don't know what the hell he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, none of us are saying that the rules can't be changed here. We are just saying they shouldn't be. In the House of Representatives, I don't know, but I thought the majority rules. I thought that was kind of an important standard that we all followed around here, but apparently not.

Apparently, according to my Republican colleagues who are now in charge, it is now the minority that should rule, that a minority of opinion who doesn't want to see things come to the floor can just block it and not even give people an opportunity to vote up or down.

I think this is a very dangerous precedent, and I think the majority is going to regret going down this road. Again, I hope that there are courageous people on the Republican side who will stand with Representative Luna and all of us and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentleman who just spoke, just because the gentleman yells doesn't make his vote count more. It certainly doesn't make him right.

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump literally works from a golf course, and my friends on the other side of the aisle don't say anything about it. Yet, God forbid a pregnant mother be able to have her baby in the safety of her home and in her community and she votes by proxy. Somehow, the Republic will fall? Give me a break.

What the hell is wrong with the majority? This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous. This is coming from a group of people over there, many of whom voted by proxy during COVID, some of them multiple times. I don't have any patience for this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Representative Dexter's amendment to the SAVE Act, which prevents the bill from taking effect within a State unless that State certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to disenfranchisement of eligible married women voters.

I ask for 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 gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter), the sponsor of this legislation, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I don't even know what the hell he is talking about.

Let me just say this: I never voted by proxy. I helped establish those rules during COVID, but I never did because I followed the rules.

The gentleman voted 63 times by proxy, including one time going to a rightwing Republican political convention. That was not following the rules. So much for being unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Moskowitz).

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

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. This isn't just about overdraft fees, mobile apps, or voter registration requirements. This is about one political party, the Republican Party, which has made a deliberate choice to side with the rich and powerful over the people they were elected to serve.

Time and time again, Republicans have shown us exactly who they are.

They are not interested in lifting up working families. They are interested in protecting greedy corporations.

They are not interested or worried about making life easier for everyday people. They are worried about making life easier for the rich and the powerful.

The Republican vision for America is one where the rules don't apply to those at the top and the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves. That is very different from the Democratic vision for America because Democrats believe real freedom means economic security.

We believe opportunity means being able to pay your bills without being gouged by Big Bank overdraft fees. We believe consumers should be protected from fraud.

We believe that working people should come first, not Wall Street, not Silicon Valley, not MAGA billionaires who think democracy is optional.

We believe that this Congress ought to embrace the 21st century. Republicans are using this vote to block Representative Luna from offering her resolution to allow new moms and dads to vote by proxy in this Congress. This is a huge change to centuries of precedent. They are taking power away from a majority, a majority of Members of the House, by blocking a bipartisan resolution.

Let me be crystal clear: A minority of this Chamber is upending what a majority in both parties wants.

I get it. Some of you are obsessed with copying authoritarian regimes, but guess what. We are not in a dictatorship, and Republicans and Democrats should reject this cowardly change.

The American people are watching. They, quite frankly, don't understand the rationale that my Republican colleagues put forward about why new mothers and new fathers have to be here in person while making comparisons to doctors who are operating on patients.

We are casting votes. We are casting votes.

Representative Pettersen, having just given birth to a new baby, should be able to represent her constituents from her district in the safety of her community and in her home.

What the hell is the big deal? Do you think the world is coming to an end? The people who are complaining the loudest are the ones who abused proxy voting when we had it during COVID.

By the way, news flash, everybody: There is a Member of the Republican Party who voted by proxy to do a comedy show on the West Coast just a few months ago, and they all know about it. There is no accountability. There is no one holding anybody to account for that, basically, voter fraud, but they are here on the floor today complaining about new mothers and new fathers being able to vote by proxy.

This is absurd. This is absurd. The American people I know are disgusted by what they are hearing here today. The American people are watching.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this outrageous, antidemocratic rule. I ask my Republican colleagues to stand up and show some courage today because what you are doing today, what the leadership is doing today, is basically precedent setting.

This will come back and haunt you at some point. Don't ruin these precedents. Don't ruin these traditions.

Let's build an economy and a democracy that works for everyone. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.