Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025

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

Mr. Speaker, we have four bills in this rule today. All of them are completely closed--no amendments, no debate, completely closed. I feel like I am in Russia. Three of them are from the failed rule last night, which was the third failed rule in this Congress, the seventh under Speaker Johnson, and the tenth of the reigning Republican majority. That alone demonstrates Republicans' inability to govern.

Then we have the so-called SAVE America Act. The gentleman from Texas is going to spend today's debate trying to convince you that this is a commonsense, simple bill, but I want you to remember a very few important facts while he is talking.

First of all, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections, period, full stop. If noncitizens are voting in Federal elections, they should be prosecuted. We don't disagree on that.

Second, nobody disputes the fact that voters should follow the law and indicate who they are. We agree on that, too. Nobody is debating that on the floor today.

What we are debating is whether we are going to believe the BS conspiracy theories cooked up by Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans about whether or not elections can be trusted in this country.

What we are debating is whether, in response to those lies, we are going to require Americans to go down to their county clerk, to take the train to city hall, or to drive down to the registrar's office and jump through bureaucratic hoops just to register to vote.

Who asked for more red tape? Did Jim Crow call?

I mean, that is what this bill is about. It is not about voter ID. It is about voter registration, and it is about voter suppression.

We always tell people to vote, make their voices heard, participate in our democracy, right? Those are supposed to be good things.

Why are Republicans passing a bill that makes it as hard as possible to vote? I will let them answer that question, but I guess it is about what I have come to expect from a party that no longer believes in democracy, though.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I asked the chairman of the Committee on House Administration a simple question: Did Donald Trump win or lose the State of Minnesota in the last three Presidential elections? It is not a curve ball; not a difficult question.

Of course, anyone living in reality knows the answer to this--Donald Trump lost Minnesota three times--but not Donald Trump. He continues denying election results. He said just last Friday that because of voter fraud, he feels he won Minnesota.

The Republican chairman of the House Administration Committee, the congressional committee which regulates Federal election laws, couldn't give me a straight answer, couldn't answer that question. He couldn't tell me if he agreed with Donald Trump. He wouldn't say who won Minnesota. He went through all kinds of contortions to avoid answering the question.

I mean, this is a simple question. That is shocking, Mr. Speaker. I mean, you guys want America to trust you to write our election laws? Americans can't even trust you to tell us who won the election.

Oh, and then here is another thing: One of the changes that were made--by the way, this bill didn't go through committee process. I mean, this was kind of rushed to the floor. All kinds of major changes have been made in the last week, but here is one of the major changes: This bill, if passed, was supposed to take effect in the year 2027. There is a change in this bill. It takes place immediately, for this election.

I mean, how is that going to happen? We have elections beginning in a matter of a few weeks, and you are expecting every State to be able to comply with all these new rules and regulations, like, immediately?

This is about sowing chaos and confusion. My friends on the other side know they are probably going to lose the next election, and they are going to lose big. Rather than live up to the reality or respect the voters, they are going to try to make up some conspiracy theory that the election was stolen or undocumented migrants came in and voted against them.

Here is the hard truth: If Republicans want to know why people are losing faith in our elections, they ought to look in the mirror. They ought to look in the mirror.

People are losing faith because Donald Trump, the election denier in chief, can't admit he lost. People are losing faith because Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel's FBI raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, based on recycled conspiracy theories. They seized 2020 election results, even though it was Donald Trump who asked the Georgia Secretary of State to find 11,780 ballots so that he can win, even though he lost, and that is on tape.

They are losing faith in our elections because they saw Pam Bondi trying to shake down Minnesota's State government, saying the administration would only withdraw ICE if Minnesota handed over their voter rolls to Trump's DOJ. They are losing faith because of bills like this, which force every State in America to give their voter rolls over to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

Let that sink in. She is probably one of the least trustworthy people in the country right now. I wouldn't trust Kristi Noem to tell me the correct time, and we are asking States to turn over their voting rolls to her. Give me a break.

We don't need any more lectures from Republicans about the sanctity of democracy or why people are losing faith in our democratic institutions. We know why, and we know what this bill is. This is Jim Crow 2.0. Republicans think that when fewer Americans vote, they win. It is as simple as that.

I am so sick of the other side just making things up. This widespread voter fraud conspiracy is all part of the same election denialism that goes right up to the Oval Office.

The other side has been making these claims for years now. We have heard about this for over a decade. They claim that massive numbers of noncitizens are voting, swaying elections, and that rampant voter fraud is changing results.

Every single one of those claims, Mr. Speaker, has been investigated again and again by Republican Governors and Republican Secretaries of State, by journalists, by academic researchers, and by President Trump himself, whose own voter fraud commission was disbanded because he couldn't find enough evidence to warrant the absurd allegations that he was making.

Every time these claims are investigated, they disappear like a mirage. This entire bill is fundamentally predicated on a lie. In fact, when you crunch the numbers, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than to successfully impersonate someone at the polls. Enough already.

The SAVE America Act is a terrible bill that makes it harder for American citizens to participate in our democracy. That is it.

America does not want to be saved by a Republican Party that spent a year propping up Trump's tariffs, which have driven costs through the roof. We don't want to be saved by the people who continue covering up for pedophiles in the Epstein files. America certainly doesn't want to be saved by the same people who still can't get over losing the 2020 election so they are going to try to rig the next one.

Go save somebody else, but we don't want this garbage. We will fight like hell to stop you from making it harder for millions of Americans to register to vote.

We know why you are doing this. It is because you are afraid that you are going to lose in November. Well, too bad. Too bad. Either change your crappy policies or face the voters and deal with the consequences of your own actions. Those are the only two options in a democracy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first correct the gentleman from Texas, who mischaracterized deliberately my remarks. I made it very clear in my opening, and I will read it again to him, that if noncitizens are voting in Federal elections, they should be prosecuted. We all believe it. He doesn't have to listen if he doesn't want to, but please don't mischaracterize what I said.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking over to the other side of the aisle and can't help but be stunned by the number of people over there who I remember coming on this floor and denying the election results in the year 2020 because they didn't like the results.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order amendment No. 10 to the SAVE America Act, which prohibits Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, their spouses, and dependents from owning or trading stocks.

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

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), the sponsor of the amendment and the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

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

Let's talk about common sense for a second. When the gentleman from Texas introduced this bill, the effective date was in 2027. All of a sudden, because, I think, a right-winger on their side did a tweet that caused all kinds of chaos, they moved for it to take effect immediately, notwithstanding the fact we have primaries beginning in some States in a matter of just a few weeks.

I would just point out to the gentleman who just spoke that we have this thing called a Real ID. For 20 years, we have been trying to implement it. We spent billions of dollars trying to implement it and still not everybody has it. It has taken 20 years. My colleagues are pushing all these new changes on States. They have to do it in a matter of a couple of weeks?

We all know what this is about. We all know what this is about. People see through this. This is not about protecting our democracy. It is not about preventing undocumented immigrants from voting. That is already illegal in this country. This is about sowing confusion and chaos because they know they are going to lose the next election. What an underhanded way to deal with elections in our democracy. What an insult to the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from ``ABC News'' titled: ``Election Fact Check: Noncitizens Can't Vote, and Instances Are `Vanishingly Rare.' ''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from NPR titled: ``Despite grand claims, a new report shows noncitizen voting hasn't materialized.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Cato Institute titled: ``Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record another piece from the Cato Institute titled: ``Trump's Claims About Noncitizen Voting Are False. We Can Prove It.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the American Immigration Council titled: ``Unpacking Myths About Noncitizen Voting--How Heritage Foundation's Own Data Proves It's Not a Problem.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an excerpt from an academic article from the journal on Electoral Studies titled: ``An exploration of Donald Trump's allegations of massive voter fraud in the 2016 election,'' which finds:

`` . . . expansive voter fraud concerns espoused by Donald Trump and those aligned with him are not grounded in any observable features of the 2016 election.''

Mr. Speaker, the final thing I will say before I yield to my colleague here is that not too long ago former Governor Rick Scott claimed erroneously that there were hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants registered to vote in Florida. He launched this massive investigation and spent all kinds of money investigating it. It was essentially a witch hunt.

I would ask my colleagues if they know how many people were prosecuted in that or convicted of any crime. One person was prosecuted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Olszewski).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) read a list, and I asked him to yield to me, but he didn't want to. What the gentleman was doing was cherry-picking cases basically to sow distrust in our elections, just like Donald Trump does.

If the gentleman wants to read a list, I will read a list.

Matt DePerno, a former Michigan Republican State attorney general candidate, was charged with conspiracy and undue possession of a voting machine.

Former Republican Michigan State Representative Daire Rendon was also charged with conspiracy to commit undue possession of a voting machine and false pretenses. What was Ms. Rendon's punishment for this? The Republican Party promoted her to be the chairwoman of the party in her congressional district.

A Republican county clerk in Colorado, Tina Peters, is in prison for a scheme to breach voting systems, fueled by 2020 election conspiracy theories.

A Republican official in Georgia was fined for illegally voting multiple times.

A former GOP lawmaker in Arizona pled guilty to attempted election fraud involving forged signatures.

In North Carolina, four people pled guilty on Monday to misdemeanors for their roles in absentee ballot fraud in rural North Carolina during the 2016 and 2018 elections to help Republican congressional candidates.

Let's not even get into Donald Trump actually being recorded--it is recorded--asking for 11,800 votes to basically change the results in Georgia during the 2020 election.

If my Republican friends want to talk about voter fraud, look in the mirror. Look in the mirror and maybe remember that old saying: ``Physician, heal thyself.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I love the fact that all these guys have are statistically insignificant anecdotes that they like to put forward here.

The gentleman from Texas talked about how wonderful the economy was. This is an article that just appeared today. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that U.S. employers added 181,000 jobs last year, far fewer than the 1.46 million that were added in 2024.

You may be impressed by that, but I am not a cheap date when it comes to making sure people have jobs in this country.

The gentleman from Texas said that we don't want to protect elections. We do. We want to protect them from you. We want to protect them from Trump. We want to protect them from all of you who are trying to suppress the vote, who are constantly in denial over the results of our elections.

Last night, we had Republicans come before the Committee on Rules, and they couldn't even bring themselves to say who won the 2020 election. They couldn't even say that Donald Trump lost Minnesota. They are so afraid of being punished by this administration. It is pathetic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree very strongly with what was just said. I don't see Trump trying to preserve our elections. I have been witnessing him trying to undermine trust in our elections and to rig our elections.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a prime example of how awful the process has been under this Republican majority. The SAVE America Act was introduced by the gentleman of Texas just 12 days ago, and it included significant changes from its original version, the SAVE Act.

After the SAVE America Act's initial introduction, the Committee on Rules posted a complete rewrite of it last Friday. Even after two sweeping rounds of edits, Republicans were not done changing their half-baked bill. Yesterday, they posted a manager's amendment, which makes more changes, including changing when the bill would take effect and which voter IDs would be acceptable. We have seen three totally different versions of this bill in a dozen days.

It is important to say that all of these changes were backroom deals. There were no hearings, no markups, no regular order. The chairman of the Committee on House Administration didn't even feign a desire to include rank-and-file members in the process. He actually requested a completely closed rule for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, bad process is not a rare occurrence around here. It is a fundamental feature of Republican governance. Last Congress, Republican leadership made history for running the most closed, unproductive, dysfunctional Congress in modern American history. This Congress, Republicans have only doubled down on this shameful record.

Eighty-four percent of measures that Republicans have sent to the House floor have been totally closed, no amendments, no discussion, no democracy, just take it or leave it. Republican leadership has blocked 82 percent of amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules, over 3,300 amendments blocked, including most Republican amendments, and over 60 percent of bipartisan amendments.

If you are a Democrat, forget it. I am not sure they even read what we submit.

This blockade on amendments is leading to some shameful records. For example, this Republican majority set a record for the fewest House votes cast in the first session of a 2-year Congress in over 35 years. Under Speaker Johnson, the Committee on Rules is where democracy goes to die.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, why should we trust Republicans to rewrite voting laws when they are setting records for blocking voting in the people's House? This Republican Congress is an insult to the American people and a disgrace to our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas I appreciate him reading that list, but the reason we know about that is because those people were caught. The list I read of Republican officials who were caught engaging in voter fraud, the reason we know about it because they were caught. The system is working. Stop trying to sow division and chaos into our electoral system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Texas who wrote this bill: How the hell are States supposed to implement this new bill in a matter a few weeks? His original bill gave States until 2027. We have primaries coming up in a matter of a couple of weeks. How the hell is this going to be implemented, Mr. Speaker? This is ridiculous. This is about sowing division and chaos in our elections. The bottom line is it is a rotten thing to do.

People want to participate in our democracy. They want to vote. I am going to tell you, I can't wait until the next election because they are going to vote you guys right out of office. The economy stinks under this administration. I mean, the rhetoric coming out of this White House is appalling. Enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to respond to the gentleman who characterized January 6 as a normal day of tourism here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for pointing out these anecdotal cases of voter fraud, and I appreciate the fact that he mentioned they were all caught, just like all the Republican officials that I read, and I have a volume more that I could read. They were caught, so it sounds like the system works.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me state, again, for the gentleman from Texas, because he doesn't seem to understand me: Nobody should vote illegally.

If this is the rampant problem they say it is, then maybe he should call Pam Bondi and ask her why she has only secured one or two voter fraud convictions nationwide out of over 155 million votes cast in 2024.

Maybe he should explain to us why his solution to a small handful of voter fraud cases is to punish the 155 million American citizens who did vote by making it harder for them to vote the next time.

Again, Republicans keep insisting there is this massive voter fraud conspiracy. The onus is on them to prove their absurd claim. Every time they try, every time this is investigated by States, by commissions, and by prosecutors, the result is the same: no widespread voter fraud conspiracy. There have been billions of votes cast over decades and a teeny tiny percentage of fraud. That is not a crisis, and it certainly is not a justification to rewrite the rules of democracy. But that is what is happening with the Republican lies to erode the trust in our democracy. That is why this bill is so toxic.

Again, the SAVE America Act tells millions of Americans: You have to show up in person and jump through hoops just to register to vote. Mr. Speaker, you can file your taxes online, you can pay your bills online, and you can get your medical results online, but if this bill passes, you can't fully register to vote online. That is nuts.

You have to buy a passport, Mr. Speaker--that is $130--or you have to buy a copy of your birth certificate. Good luck, because you might even have to pick that up in person. What if a person lives in a rural community and has to drive 100 miles round trip just to get to the clerk's office?

What if they can't afford to take the day off from work just to register to vote?

Who gets punished?

They are students, seniors, Americans with disabilities, and working parents who just can't leave a shift early to stand in line at a clerk's office window that closes at 5:00.

We know this isn't really about voter fraud. It is not about protecting our elections. This is a smokescreen. It is a distraction. If Republicans wanted to protect elections, they would be focused on real threats: cyberattacks, foreign interference, disinformation, intimidation, and violence against election workers. That is where the real danger is. Yet this bill does nothing to address those things.

The SAVE America Act is about denying elections and sowing distress in our system. That is because, according to Donald Trump, it is only fair and square when he wins. When Democrats win, then it is fraud. That is their whole argument in a nutshell.

The most ironic thing of all is that Republican leaders are the ones who seem to commit voter fraud the most. A Republican county clerk in Colorado is in prison for a scheme to breach voting systems fueled by 2020 election conspiracy theories. A Republican official in Georgia was fined for illegally voting multiple times. There was a former GOP lawmaker in Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about voter suppression. This is a lousy bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I know mistakes happen, but just so everyone knows what is happening here:

You introduced a bill less than 2 weeks ago. Then you gutted that with a substitute amendment. Then you changed that version with a manager's amendment. Now you have to fix that amendment.

There was no hearing, no markup, and a slew of changes and fixes in a matter of days. It makes you wonder what other mistakes there are, all to make it harder for millions of people to vote.

I would just say to my colleagues: Slow down. Do this process right. You want to implement this bill in a matter of weeks when we have primary elections coming up in a matter of weeks? I mean, it should give everybody pause. This process of legislating here needs to improve.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Roy

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1042 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule providing for consideration of three measures.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, the Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees, and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. The rule before us once again exposes a fundamental divide in the House. Republicans are focused on protecting American lives, American infrastructure, and American national security. Democrats are focused on protecting bureaucracies, activist pressure campaigns, and the broken systems they created.

For years, Democrats have governed by slogan instead of substance. They talk about safety, but undermine law enforcement. They claim to care about national security, but allow infrastructure critical to that mission of security to decay. They give lipservice to the need to reshore our supply chains, while time and again supporting policies and legislation that ensure that America remains dependent on our foreign adversaries.

Their opposition to the rule today undermines and underlines the stark contrast between the left's words and their actions, which threaten to undermine our country.

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. Every single day, law enforcement officers are asked to make split-second decisions in dangerous, unpredictable situations. In those moments, officers should have access to every appropriate tool available to de-escalate encounters, protect themselves, and save the public's lives.

Yet standing in their way is outdated Federal law. Under current statute, less-than-lethal devices like tasers are still treated like firearms. That classification no longer reflects modern technology, modern training, or modern policing. It creates unnecessary barriers for law enforcement agencies across this country.

These devices are designed to temporarily incapacitate an individual without causing serious or permanent injury. They play a critical role in real-world law enforcement encounters by giving officers a nonlethal option to defuse potentially violent situations and protect both officers and the public at large.

Because these de-escalation tools are misclassified under Federal law, the consequences are real. Law enforcement agencies and communities face higher costs, procurement delays, and unnecessary regulatory hurdles, including taxes and rules written over 50 years ago that were never intended to apply to modern, less-than-lethal technology.

At a time when departments are investing in better training, accountability, and modern technology to reduce fatal encounters, access to less-than-lethal alternatives should be expanding, not shrinking. Federal law should be keeping pace with innovation, not trapping law enforcement in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act updates this outdated framework and acknowledges a simple fact. Law enforcement officers need access to better tools in order to do their job safely and effectively.

The bill ensures less-than-lethal devices are treated for what they are, which are tools in de-escalation, not firearms. It draws clear lines, focuses on devices designed to incapacitate without causing serious injury, and explicitly prevents any device that would be converted into a lethal weapon from falling under the new definition.

Democrats will claim that this bill is dangerous. They always do. The real danger is forcing our law enforcement officers into a false choice between using deadly force or no force at all. If we are serious about reducing violent encounters and saving lives, we should be focused on giving officers more options to de-escalate situations when seconds matter.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025. This bill is about infrastructure most Americans will never see but every single one of us rely on every single day. From sending an email to making a phone call to moving money across the globe, undersea cables are the backbone of the modern world.

In fact, undersea cables carry more than 95 percent of global internet traffic. They support military communications. They move trillions of dollars in financial transactions and keep the global economy functioning.

Protecting this infrastructure is not just about speed or convenience. It is about national security. Route diversity matters. When too many cables are forced into the same landing areas, vulnerabilities increase. Adversaries take notice.

Despite their importance, undersea cable projects face duplicative and unnecessary regulatory hurdles. Even after projects receive all required Federal and State approvals, agencies can still demand additional authorizations, slowing installation, maintenance, and repair work that is critical to keeping these systems secure.

We see this pattern far too often in Washington. Projects are approved, but delays pile up anyway. Timelines slip. Responsibility gets passed around. Bureaucracy grows, while real-world risks go unaddressed.

We saw the same pattern play out in upstate New York. Micron is making a historic investment in bringing advanced semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States, creating thousands of good- paying jobs and strengthening domestic supply chains critical to our national security.

Yet, even after clearing one of the most stringent State environmental review processes in the country, the project is subjected to duplicative Federal reviews that reached the same exact conclusions again and again. Those delays were not about environmental risks. They were bureaucratic duplication, years of lost time before construction could even begin.

That is not environmental protection. It is regulatory paralysis. It is

the same kind of post-approval delay and second-guessing that puts critical projects, including our undersea cable installation, maintenance, and repair, at risk.

At a time when adversaries are actively probing undersea infrastructure, Washington should be focused on protection, resilience, and readiness, not red tape.

That is exactly what the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 does. It prevents agencies from piling new permitting requirements onto projects that have already been reviewed and approved. It allows installation, maintenance, and repair to move forward without unnecessary delay, while preserving coordination and oversight.

Nothing in this bill weakens environmental laws. Nothing strips oversight and accountability. It simply says that once the government has completed its review, it should not keep finding ways to slow down critical security infrastructure.

If Democrats were serious about national security, we could pass this on suspension. They would support protecting the infrastructure that carries our communications, our commerce, and our defense information. Instead, they will continue to defend a broken process that leaves critical assets exposed and America more vulnerable than it should be.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act. Critical minerals are essential to modern life. They are used in defense systems, energy infrastructure, manufacturing, and the advanced technologies that power our economy and keep this country secure. Without reliable access to these materials, everything built on top of them becomes vulnerable.

Yet for years, Washington policies have discouraged domestic production and pushed our supply chains overseas. The result was predictable. The United States became dangerously dependent on foreign sources for critical minerals, often controlled by adversarial nations that do not share our interests or our values.

American jobs were lost and supply chains weakened. Foreign governments gained leverage over materials our economy and national defense rely on every single day. That is the damage this Congress is now working to reverse.

Energy security has been a core national security concern before. After the oil crises of the 1970s, Americans learned the hard way what happens when adversaries control the resources our economy depends on.

Today, we face a similar threat not just in energy but across the next generation of industries like artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and defense systems that all rely on critical minerals.

After decades of degrowth policies that drove energy production, mining, and refining all overseas, our adversaries exploited those vulnerabilities. The result is an economy that leaves American families exposed to decisions made in places like Communist China.

We have already seen this play out. Communist China has taken steps to restrict exports of key minerals including antimony, which is essential to defense manufacturing for systems like radar. That is not a theoretical risk. It is active leverage being used against the United States today.

Under President Trump, the United States has begun to change course by prioritizing domestic production, strengthening supply chain security, and treating critical minerals as a strategic national interest.

H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, builds on that effort. It forces the Federal Government to take a hard look at where America is vulnerable, improves coordination across agencies, and ensures securing critical minerals is treated as a priority, not as an afterthought.

The bill strengthens the Department of Energy's role in identifying supply chain risks and supporting responsible domestic production, refining, and processing, so America is not forced to rely on adversaries for materials essential to our economy and to our defense.

Let's be clear about what this bill does not do. It does not eliminate environmental review. It does not lower standards. It simply says America should be able to responsibly produce what it needs here at home instead of outsourcing our future to foreign powers.

Instead of trying to score political points, Democrats should support efforts to close the supply chain vulnerabilities that Communist China actively exploits to the detriment of the American people.

If Democrats were serious about supply chain security and national defense, this is exactly the kind of bill that they would support. Instead, they spent years defending policies that left America exposed. Republicans are choosing strength, security, and self-reliance. Democrats choose dependence and delay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle would love to scapegoat everything on the President's tariff authority. The question of affordability, which they have all of a sudden gotten into their hands, is rich given that they presided over the worst inflation spike in 40 years.

Under President Joe Biden, families paid more for everything, for food, housing, transportation, and energy. It all exploded on their watch when they ran three Houses of government.

Energy prices surged roughly 20 percent. In many parts of the country, electricity rates rose 30 percent. Democrats didn't just miss the problem. They caused it, and then they put their hands over their face and pretended like everything was okay.

Those weren't abstract numbers. Those were kitchen table realities, and they remain kitchen table realities for working families, who are lectured by Democrats to be patient. Meanwhile, this transitory inflation--their claim--they just spent trillions of dollars more and inflamed the problem all the more.

The difference today could not be any clearer. Gas prices are coming down. They are at their lowest level in 4 years. Real wages are rising again. Regulatory costs are finally being rolled back after years of Democrats using regulations as a weapon against affordability.

President Trump and congressional Republicans are cleaning up the mess left behind, undoing the damage of the Biden economic policies, restoring confidence, and rebuilding an economy that works for people who actually earn a paycheck.

That brings us to the rule before us today. The three bills under this rule all address affordability in the real world. They reduce unnecessary delays that drive up costs. They protect the infrastructure Americans rely on every single day. They support domestic production, so families are not left paying more because Washington chose delay, dependence, and dysfunction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5 on this very issue of whether the Trump administration has the authority to impose the tariffs under the debate right here. Our extension of the tolling days is something Democrats did themselves back in the 116th and the 117th Congress.

Unlike when they did it, ours has a clear end date, sunsetting in a matter of months, unlike the blanket prohibitions of COVID NEA resolutions under Democratic rule.

This extension will allow the Supreme Court the time necessary to provide a ruling on this extremely consequential issue. It is just amazing to hear the arguments about affordability when they presided over an era of government that exploded our national debt, exploded prices, not to the tune of $1,000 but tens of thousands of dollars on Americans across the board, and they still tried to convince people that their policies had nothing to do with it.

That is why this House is in Republican hands, the U.S. Senate is in Republican hands, and the White House is in Republican hands. That is because it was part of the mandate given by the American people to reset the global trade order and to renegotiate unfair trade deals that have happened over decades. Both Republican and Democratic administrations alike took advantage of the American worker, chased our jobs overseas, and ruined our supply chains. All of those things happened.

The tariffs have been an important tool that the President has been able to use to create real trade deals, opening up markets for American products. We have seen it firsthand. We have new trade deals around the globe. America has come from a position of strength because of this tool, not a position of weakness. We can't allow that weakness to prevail.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2189 does not allow felons or violent criminals to gain access to anything new. It does not override State or local law, and anyone barred from possessing these devices today remains barred tomorrow.

What this bill actually does is correct an outdated Federal classification that treats tasers like deadly firearms. That outdated and absurd classification has driven up costs, created delays, and made it harder for law enforcement agencies to access less-than-lethal tools designed to specifically de-escalate situations and to save lives.

Democrats are calling that clarity a loophole. In reality, the only thing that this bill closes is the gap between outdated law and modern policing. Instead of supporting officers who want safer alternatives to deadly force, Democrats are trying to scare the public with cherry- picked statistics and misleading claims.

Let's be honest. If Democrats were truly concerned about public safety, they would not oppose a bill that encourages de-escalation and reduces the likelihood of fatal outcomes and encounters.

Despite all this rhetorical nonsense about policing in the United States, Democrats are standing in the way of this commonsense measure. They cannot seem to support legislation that empowers law enforcement in any way, even when it keeps communities safe.

However, this pattern is not stopped with this bill. Across all three bills before the House today, the choice is the same. Republicans are offering practical solutions to strengthen public safety, protect critical infrastructure, and secure our supply chains that our national security depends on, and Democrats are choosing, again, to delay, to distort, and to defend broken systems and outcomes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it has become impossible to ignore a defining feature of today's Democratic Party, and that is Trump derangement syndrome, which is a real disease. No matter what legislation is before this House, no matter how unrelated it is to President Trump, Democrats find a way to twist the debate back to him--his personality, what they hate about him--not the text of the bill, not any of the real-world problems families are facing, just Trump over and over and over. Every time they do that, American people pay the price.

When inflation exploded in 2022, after trillions of dollars in Democratic spending overheated the economy, families were drowning in higher grocery bills, higher gas prices, and higher rents. All of it exploded, went out of control. It is a matter of fact. It is not a matter up for debate. It happened in this country.

Democrats were not focused on fixing those things. Instead, they are focused on their latest Trump obsession. When the border collapsed and millions of illegal immigrants poured into communities across our country, Democrats once again ignored the consequences of their own policies. Instead of securing the border or addressing affordability, they leaned harder into the same tired talking points and hysteria about President Trump.

Voters saw right through that in the last election, and Democrats lost the popular vote. They lost the electoral college. They lost every swing State on the map. Yet, even after that decisive rejection, Trump derangement syndrome remains completely untreated.

Instead of course correcting, Democrats continue to defend wasteful programs, failed policies, bloated bureaucracy, while reflexively opposing every effort that President Trump and House Republicans are making to clean up the mess that they created.

Here we are again today listening to the same theatrics. The American people are no longer entertained by those theatrics. They are focused on results: lowering costs, securing the border, strengthening energy independence, restoring accountability in Washington, reshoring American jobs, and bringing manufacturing here back to the United States of America that their failed policies over decades have chased away.

While Democrats remain stuck in the year 9--we are going on year 10-- of Trump derangement syndrome, Republicans are focused on governing and delivering results for working families. Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again remind my colleagues of what is actually in the rule before us today.

The rule provides for consideration of three commonsense bills: the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, which we have talked about; the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025; and H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, which will strengthen our domestic critical mineral supply chain so we can be stronger here at home and across the world.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for years, Democrats told the American people not to believe what they could see with their own eyes. They said that crime was under control, our infrastructure was secure, our supply chains were resilient, and our energy systems were just fine.

The legislation under the rule today takes real steps toward fixing broken systems, supporting our law enforcement officers, protecting critical infrastructure, and rebuilding supply chains right here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1057 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 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 four pieces of legislation. The rule provides for consideration of S. 1383, the SAVE America Act, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides for one motion to commit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, the Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 261, the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Mineral Supply Act, under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides same-day authority through Friday, February 13, for a rule providing for consideration of a continuing resolution related to the Department of Homeland Security funding.

Mr. Speaker, as the House of Representatives works to deliver on the critical issues our Nation faces, we urge our colleagues today to prioritize the passage of S. 1383, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE America Act, which builds upon the SAVE Act introduced in previous Congresses that requires States to obtain proof of citizenship for Federal elections, ensuring only U.S. citizens are voting in those elections. In addition, the SAVE America Act requires individuals to present a valid photo identification before voting.

Our Founders set forth our electoral processes 250 years ago based upon the simple and ultimate principle that only Americans should vote. However, in this age of progressive, suicidal empathy, basic concepts such as voter ID and proof of citizenship have been attacked as suppression.

Let's consider the facts.

Fact one: Under the previous administration, the Biden-Harris- Mayorkas administration, some 10 million or more illegal aliens poured into communities across our country, adding to an existing foreign-born population, which totals upward of over 50 million people or close to 16 percent.

Fact two: While only U.S. citizens are legally eligible to vote in Federal elections, Federal law actually interferes with and prevents States from using Federal data to check their voter rolls to ensure that only citizens are voting, such that we end up in the upside-down situation where a State like Arizona has two different sets of systems, one for State and local and one for Federal.

Fact three: This is a recipe for fraud and a recipe for having people vote who shouldn't be voting. It undermines people's confidence in our electoral system. When combined with the fact that several jurisdictions offer driver's licenses and other benefits to illegal aliens and other foreign nationals, it provides opportunity for noncitizens to register to vote.

Fact four: Polling data is overwhelmingly in support of the SAVE America Act and its principles, that only American citizens should vote, and that we should use voter identification when we go to vote. Polling indicates that over 70 percent of Democrats across this country, over 90 percent of Republicans, and well over 70 percent of virtually every ethnicity and ethnic group in the country--Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, White Americans, men, women, rural, urban--overwhelmingly support voter identification and ensuring that only citizens vote.

Fact five: We passed the SAVE Act in the previous, preceding Congress. We passed the SAVE Act in this Congress focusing on citizenship. We now bring the SAVE America Act forward that adds voter identification, which is, again, overwhelmingly popular.

The SAVE Act passed on a bipartisan basis. Democrats joined with us in the previous Congress. Democrats joined with us in this Congress. In both instances, the House of Representatives affirmed that only U.S. citizens should vote in Federal elections.

Let's add voter ID to it. Let's pass the SAVE America Act. Let's send it over to the Senate and let the Senate move this legislation to the President's desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a whole lot of words to say my Democratic colleagues don't want only citizens to vote and don't like voter ID.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Arizona, but I will just note that, as one of the lead sponsors of the legislation to deal with prohibiting Members of Congress from engaging in the act of trading in stocks, we are working on a bipartisan basis. We have legislation we are going to move. There will be a time to do that, and this is a complete substitute. In other words, this is fake.

It is a bunch of drama because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want voter identification to be used to vote, and they do not want to guarantee that only citizens vote. It is that simple.

Mr. Speaker, we will deal with stock trading. I am one of the lead sponsors of that legislation. We will get it done but not as a substitute for what 80 percent of American people want, which is to guarantee only citizens vote and that they show up with a voter identification.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that this administration is relieving the devastating costs on the American people by creating economic growth and undoing a lot of the damage of the previous administration. We are seeing that on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is simply incorrect with respect to the amount of evidence that has mounted over people who are voting and should not be. The record is replete. In one example, ICE arrested criminal illegal alien Ian Andre Roberts, who was serving as the Des Moines, Iowa, school district superintendent at the time of his arrest. After his arrest, it was found that Roberts was a registered voter in Maryland despite his illegal immigration status and long criminal record. It was a criminal record filled with narcotics trafficking, driving vehicles he shouldn't have been driving, unauthorized possession of a firearm, and other crimes.

Yet we act like this isn't occurring. I have dozens of other examples right here of arrests that have been occurring this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jack).

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that a couple of things that are important for the American people to see is that this administration has driven unemployment down to historic lows. Economic growth is now back up to close to 4 percent, we believe, in the fourth quarter, and we get those numbers at the end of February.

We are seeing, importantly, a massive surge in employment among American citizens. That is among native-born American citizens. The fact is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't care about that. They don't want to ensure that we are protecting American citizens. They don't want to have voter identification, and they don't want to ensure that only citizens vote in American elections.

That is what this is about. It is pretty simple.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the article referred to by the gentleman from Virginia be included in the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that when the gentleman from Massachusetts tries to dismiss the supposed trivial or anecdotal or cherry-picked cases, there are so many that it would take me more time than I have to read through them all of prosecutions for voter fraud and individual instances of voter fraud.

We have one here of Angelica Maria Francesco in Alabama in 2024, an illegal alien charged by Federal authorities with nine criminal counts in connection with her fraudulent assumption of the identity of a U.S. citizen, including voter fraud.

We have Alford Nelson, as known as Alford Samuels, in Florida in 2024. Alford Nelson was known as Alford Samuels, among several other aliases. He was charged by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in Broward County with two felony counts of voting as an unqualified elector. Nelson, illegal alien, unlawfully voted by mail.

I can keep on going on and on and keep going down the list. It is real. The only thing that we are putting forward is a common sense proposal to ensure that only citizens vote in American elections and that we provide voter ID at the polls.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Alabama, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle made a number of claims about this legislation. With respect to the gentleman's question, I would tell you that what we are talking about with respect to voter identification is simply a presentation of voter identification.

Thirty-six States already have voter identification requirements. To the extent that we are able to get this passed, as I hope we will and signed into law in the next month or two, we will have the ability that States can immediately be able to implement voter identification, present true voter ID. That is it, present it.

With respect to the other claims, claims about the implications for married women, the fact is that the SAVE America Act does not, as is alleged, disenfranchise voters but, rather, it provides a very specific process for anyone who changes his or her name to register to vote, including by signing an affidavit.

We believe the original form of the SAVE Act would have provided ample ability for States to have taken care of it, but we went ahead and added an additional provision to ensure that the affidavit process was there for the small fraction of the population it might have impacted. We wanted to ensure there was no chance of issues.

Questions were raised about our uniformed personnel, our men and women who serve this country overseas. We believe our previous version would have made it fine for them to be able to do what they needed to do to register to vote and vote, but we made a clarification to ensure that UOCAVA governs what happens with our men and women in uniform. We have made every attempt to work to ensure that this bill is doing exactly what it is intended to do, which is ensure that only citizens vote and that we present voter ID at the polls.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Palmer).

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

I would just like to offer, as I have done already, a number of examples, numerous other examples, of individuals committing fraud.

Laura Janeth Garza in Texas, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty to two felony charges of voter impersonation and ineligible voting. Garza stole the identity of her cousin, a U.S. citizen.

Another example is that of Mario Obdulio Orellana in Texas, a 57- year-old El Salvadoran national, who was indicted by the Department of Justice on Federal immigration and voter fraud violations.

Now, I could go down and give more and more examples. The fact is, yes, these are good examples in which we have been able to intervene and stop this voter fraud and identify the individuals and prosecute those individuals.

However, we know that there is significant additional fraud going on that we are not capturing and that we are not catching. There is a very simple and basic premise of those who have been in a prosecutorial function, which is that you only catch so many people. In this case, we have been going after some individuals, but we can certainly prevent any further abuse of our voter elections. Making sure that we have integrity in those elections is to make sure we have voter identification and ensure that only citizens are voting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts said that we are just doing this legislation because we are afraid of losing this election.

The fact of the matter is we are not. We want to ensure that we win this election by getting the votes of American citizens and not noncitizens. It is pretty simple.

I would note that the gentleman dismisses as trivial, or as the process working, the examples that we have given in the Record of the countless times where individuals have engaged in voter fraud and they have been caught and prosecuted. I would also like to point out that they were caught after they voted. That is the problem.

The core issue here is a very simple one. We all agree Americans overwhelmingly believe by polls and by all indication that only American citizens should vote in American elections. We currently have a problem. We even have problems where noncitizens sometimes don't know they are doing something wrong.

We should be very clear: When you register to vote, you are a citizen. When you show up to vote, you present voter identification. That is all that we do.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will make a technical correction to the manager's amendment to reflect the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the pending resolution with an amendment that I have placed at the desk.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to every word of my colleague from New York's very long speech regarding the bills that the House is considering today. I might perhaps offer a different picture that I think the American people ought to consider.

I think, as you know, Mr. Speaker, last month the U.S. economy shed over 100,000 jobs--100,000. It was the worst month with respect to job losses since the Great Recession in 2009.

Prices are going up across the board. Everything is getting more expensive. Orange juice is more expensive. Ground beef is more expensive. Countless Americans across our country are struggling.

Last year, we experienced a 46 percent jump in farm-related bankruptcies. Rural America is struggling under this President's reckless policies. Americans across the country are struggling economically because of House Republicans' reckless policies.

For all those who wonder whether politicians in Washington might offer a solution to what ails our country economically, have no fear. House Republicans have come up with an answer. This week, they are focused on what really matters to the American people: Cutting taxes for tasers and making it easier for multinational tech companies, monopolies, to build undersea cables through marine sanctuaries.

Those are the bills that we are considering today on the floor. That is their answer to the economic crisis that has befallen the people of our great country.

It is absurd. It is absurd. It begs the question: Why? Why would House Republicans choose this course, again, given all of the challenges that I know that their constituents face, as mine do?

Unfortunately, it is a reflection of the core values of just too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who invariably, incessantly, and inherently have a predisposition to favor the ultrarich and the biggest corporations on planet Earth. Anyone who doubts it should consider the bills that we are debating today.

I have to tell you that I do a lot of townhalls in my district. I represent the great State of Colorado. I know the Speaker, being from Nevada, knows my State quite well. I represent a large district in western Colorado and northern Colorado. It is bigger than eight States, with no offense to my colleagues from New Jersey, Maryland, or Rhode Island. It is a huge district, which means that I am on the road a lot. I do a lot of townhalls.

A lot of issues come up at these townhalls. There are a lot of obstacles that Coloradans and Americans are facing that they would like to see their elected leaders help to solve.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the one topic that has never come up at a single townhall that I have held in my career: undersea cables. It just hasn't come up.

Maybe my colleague in New York has a different experience. I don't know. I don't know if he hosts townhalls. I would encourage him to do it. Maybe undersea fiber optic cables are a big deal in his district. I can tell you that they are not in mine.

My constituents aren't really concerned with slashing permitting fees so that the largest technology companies on planet Earth can build fiber optic cables through marine animal sanctuaries. That just isn't something that they are spending a lot of time thinking about.

Who could blame them given all of the concerns that they have in light of the economic conditions that they are experiencing by virtue of this administration's cruel policies that the House Republican Conference has abetted at every turn.

Mr. Speaker, one could ask, as I suspect you would: What is the gentleman from Colorado's suggestion? Lucky for you, Mr. Speaker, I have one, because we know that one of the reasons that prices are going up across the board in the United States are tariffs. It is this President's reckless policies with respect to tariffs. We have some solutions in that regard. They are ways that Congress can finally stop abdicating its authority and exercise its powers with respect to tariffs.

I think the Speaker knows that because Speaker Johnson decided to tuck into the rule that we are considering today a measure that would prevent the House from considering any changes to the President's tariff policies for yet another 6 months.

I am going to read you a quote: ``It will be the fourth time this rule vote putting a gag on tariff debates has been done. I don't think tariffs are good for the economy, manufacturing jobs, and ag industry. American consumers pay the tariffs and thus it is a big tax. I support giving these authorities back to Congress.''

These aren't my words. These are Republican Congressman Don Bacon's words, your colleague, who agrees that what Speaker Johnson is trying to do is to, yet again, gag the United States Congress.

To Mr. Bacon, I say: Thank you for your honesty.

To the rest of my colleagues, I say: Where is your backbone? Where is your spine? Stand up for the Constitution, as your colleague is doing. Stand up for the House of Representatives. Stand up for your constituents.

Shameful, Mr. Speaker.

I am hopeful that perhaps that political courage that Mr. Bacon is showing will be contagious. Maybe a few more of my colleagues will join him.

In any event, I know that we have a lot of speakers who are eager to talk on this subject.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, whenever I have an opportunity to listen to one of my colleagues' speeches in this august body, I can always count on them to do three things: to say a noun, a verb, and ``Joe Biden.'' My colleague from New York does not disappoint with this myopic obsession that they have with Joe Biden.

Facts are facts. The price of beef has risen 16.4 percent since last year. The price of coffee is up 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. In total, families paid $310 more for groceries during President Trump's first year in office compared to 2024, so spare us these ruminations about Joe Biden.

If they want to get serious about doing something about the cost crisis in our country, making life more affordable for Americans, there is an easy way to do it: Don't sneak in procedural roadblocks to considering tariff policies by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who has been a principled leader on this issue with respect to tariffs.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I am not going to dispute my colleague from Wisconsin's sentiment here. If people are looking to not pay taxes on tasers, he has them covered. The Republican Conference has them covered.

If people are struggling to pay for their groceries or their rent, they are out of luck as far as the House Republican Conference is concerned. Taxes on tasers, don't worry. They have a plan for that. They are working really hard to solve that existential challenge facing the country as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to strike section 4, which would stop an attempt by Republican leadership to block the House from taking up-or-down votes on President Trump's disastrous tariff policies through the end of July.

As the country knows, since March of last year, Speaker Johnson and the Republican majority have blocked up-or-down votes on these policies. Our view is that these policies have been a disaster for the American people, and everyone knows it.

We all remember, with great fanfare, President Trump announcing liberation day. The only liberation that any of our constituents have felt is the money departing from their wallets as this President increases prices on everyday consumers.

It is wrong, and the Congress has a constitutional duty and responsibility to act. We know that these tariffs have cost the American people trillions of dollars. We know that according to the Joint Economic Committee, the average American family now pays an extra $1,625 in basic expenses thanks to the economic policies of this administration.

The question is why are Republicans hiding from an up-or-down vote on these tariff policies?

In the Senate, multiple votes have been held on these policies. Joint resolutions to terminate the tariffs have been sent to the House, to the Clerk here on a bipartisan basis from the United States Senate four different times. But Republicans, four different times, have done the opposite. Republicans have delayed votes on these tariffs, essentially surrendering one of Congress' main functions to one man, one man in the White House.

During the September vote, several Republicans were apparently so frustrated by the process that they actually held out for about 45 minutes before they, of course, did what we all expect them to do: fold and strike a deal.

One of them--and I will quote from one of my Republican colleagues. One of the temporary holdouts said that under the Constitution, the power to impose tariffs is a congressional power and needs to be restored to Congress. Apparently, he switched his vote after issuing that statement because he got a commitment from the Speaker that this House would only block votes on tariffs until the end of January.

Well, here we are back again with the Republican Conference springing into action to do Donald Trump's bidding. He says: ``Jump.'' Our colleagues say: ``How high?'' Well, not all of our colleagues say that. Maybe one of one or two of them, as I said, may show the courage tonight to vote their conscience.

Republicans are trying to ram through yet another rule to hide from taking up-or-down votes this time until the end of July. It is outrageous, outrageous, and it is why we are offering this amendment. Before yielding to the distinguished ranking member who has been a leader in this regard, I want to quote my colleague Tom Massie from Kentucky, a Republican, who I think said it best. ``Why haven't we

voted on tariffs in the House of Representatives?'' This is a Republican who said this. ``Because Speaker Johnson is using Rules Committee Resolutions, consummated by majority votes of the whole House, to declare that `a day is not a day' in order to AVOID THE U.S. LAW that requires Congress to vote.'' These are Republican Members of Congress, Tom Massie, Don Bacon, all saying what we know to be true, which is that the House is abdicating its duty.

I would encourage my colleagues, those of whom may find some semblance of backbone, to defeat the previous question, and we can finally have an up-or-down vote in this body on whether to terminate President Trump's disastrous tariffs starting this week with Canada, my colleague from New York's neighbor to the north.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, whose proposal we will be considering, who has fought against these disastrous tariff policies at every turn.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to respond to my colleague from New York because, again, I think this rule is largely a smokescreen to just avoid a discussion on the President's reckless tariff policies.

However, insofar as my colleague is obsessed with cutting taxes on tasers, I suppose I am compelled to respond to simply say that what was just stated with respect to violent felons not being able to access tasers by virtue of this legislation, that is untrue. It is just untrue.

Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking to remove these particular weapons from the definition of firearm under Federal law, and as a result, the various protections and safeguards that exist under Federal law. They can make the argument that in certain States there may be protections. That is not true of every State.

In any event, the larger question that every American who is watching C-SPAN now ought to ask themselves is: Why is the U.S. House of Representatives spending so much time on debating cutting taxes for tasers?

How did that manage to become the top priority of the House Republicans in Washington, D.C.?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), who is the distinguished Democratic leader of the House of Representatives.

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

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

``U.S. Manufacturing Is in Retreat and Trump's Tariffs Aren't Helping,'' February 2, 2026, headline, The Wall Street Journal.

Apparently, The Wall Street Journal has Trump derangement syndrome, too, according to my colleague from New York. American consumers must also. Everyone apparently has it except for House Republicans.

By the way, my Republican colleagues talk enough about Joe Biden, one would be forgiven for thinking they miss him. As I said, noun, verb, ``Joe Biden,'' effectively the answer and retort on my colleague's part to every question.

The reality is that my Republican colleagues, as has been displayed and demonstrated time and time again, work tragically for one person, and that person is Donald Trump. Lest anyone doubt that, let's see if a few of them will have the audacity, the courage, to vote against the rule today.

I will say, it bears repeating. I have quoted a lot of Don Bacon on the floor today. If he is watching, I hope he will forgive me in advance. I will read again this tweet, this post on X, from John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News, who quoted Mr. Bacon: ``It will be the fourth time this rule vote putting a gag on tariff debates has been done. I don't think tariffs are good for the economy, manufacturing jobs, and the ag industry. American consumers pay the tariffs and thus it is a big tax. I support giving these authorities back to Congress.''

That is from Republican U.S. Congressman Don Bacon, so spare us the stale and tired attacks about Trump derangement syndrome. These are your colleagues saying it, not me.

My colleagues ought to do the right thing: vote against this rule so that we can have an up-or-down vote on the disastrous Trump tariffs that are inflicting pain on the people who I represent in the great State of Colorado and across the country.

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 think we have figured out the rhythm, the prime directive here for Republican governance these days.

First, they slashed the services that working families actually depend on. Then they turn around and hand the savings over to their billionaire friends. They do it time and again. It is rinse, lather, repeat.

What do we have on the floor this week? We have all guessed it. It is another corporate handout, this time to the biggest technical oligarchs in the world. These folks have shown that if a person has enough money and if they are willing to bend the knee, they can pretty much get anything they want these days under MAGA Republican governance.

Every time we have tried to add protections and regulations to their platforms that would keep users and children safe, they stop it. Every time we try to do something about the disinformation they allow to run rampant in order to appease the White House and cater to extremists, they stop it.

Now they have schmoozed their way into getting Republicans to add another huge giveaway to this long, favored list of theirs. That means millions of dollars in savings so that they can run cables through our national marine sanctuaries for free.

I have to ask: What is the endgame here? Where does it stop? Are we systematically privatizing every piece of America's national heritage for the richest and most powerful corporations in the world? That is exactly where H.R. 261 seems to be taking us.

It rigs the game so that, for example, family fishing operations, dive boat captains, whale watching guides, and the other businesses that operate in marine sanctuaries have to navigate regulations. They have to play by the rules and pay fees but not the Big Tech oligarchs. These conglomerates, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, get special treatment and exemptions.

Our national marine sanctuaries encompass over half a million square miles of America's most precious underwater ecosystems. They are economic engines generating billions in tourism revenue, sustaining entire coastal economies. They are living laboratories also where families snorkel with sea turtles, divers explore historic shipwrecks, and scientists unlock climate secrets.

This legislation would let tech moguls bulldoze right through these

waters with industrial-scale operations--massive drill rigs, heavy machinery, and construction fleets--all without the environmental review that everyone else would have to undergo.

The sponsors insist that these undersea cables are just little needles in a haystack, and they will probably hold up a little segment of one of these cables to try to suggest these are just needles in a haystack. It is true that the fiber-optic lines themselves are thin, but the installation process is anything but delicate.

We are talking about seafloor excavation projects that can obliterate coral reefs and hurt marine mammals across vast swaths of the ocean. What could go wrong when these projects are happening on the seafloor?

We can look at what Meta tried to do off the Pacific Northwest coast. Their drilling operation collapsed, scattering pipes, toxic fluids, and heavy equipment across the seafloor like an underwater junkyard. Then the company just wrote a tiny check and left town. It was nowhere near the cost of the actual damage that was incurred, and the marine habitat there is still trashed.

My district is home to one of our Nation's iconic marine sanctuaries. I can say without hesitation that my constituents don't want to see these industrial activities rip through our sensitive kelp forests that support fisheries and tourism. No project in these places should happen without very careful study, without mitigation and, most importantly, without paying their fair share.

This bill would let tech executives treat these national treasures off our coasts like some kind of an industrial sacrifice zone without even paying a cent for the use of these resources.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act is the only statute requiring compatibility with the conservation objectives of each sanctuary. If we strip that away, as this bill would do, we have created a regulatory sacrifice zone.

House Republicans can't even identify which licenses and permits would qualify in this bill in lieu of the special use permit process that would ordinarily apply.

Mr. Speaker, how can we look the American people in the eye and assure them that no environmental safeguards are going away when we don't even have that very basic information? For many in the majority, the truth is, the details just don't matter.

Meta and Amazon are what matter, and they want this legislation. The majority is willing to take it at face value and just pass this along, no questions asked. They will give the oligarchs what they want.

Democrats have proposed amendments to this legislation, commonsense protections. They have proposed a mandatory insurance coverage requirement, for example. They have also offered off-limits zones for very sensitive habitats and standard user fees like these oligarchs pay when they run one of these on land.

Our amendment would have allowed the basics of H.R. 261 to move forward, allowing an alternate process to the current special use permit, while preserving some of these basic operational guardrails to ensure the protection of these very special and fragile places.

The majority shot down every one of these proposals. This is not about efficiency. It is about preferential treatment for oligarchs like Meta and Amazon.

Consider this: When telecom companies want to access our national forests for one of these projects, they pay rent. When they cross national parks, they pay fees, but somehow marine sanctuaries are supposed to be free. That is nothing more than a corporate giveaway and a terrible precedent that won't stop with our marine sanctuaries.

The sponsors wrapped this handout in national security rhetoric. We have already heard some of it from the chairman. They claim that there is an urgent telecommunications crisis.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that these are multibillion- dollar projects spanning years and thousands of miles. They make their maps public. Everyone knows where these projects are taking place. The cost of environmental assessments is pocket change for these operations, but it could mean the difference between healthy habitats and destroyed resources in our national marine sanctuaries.

Here is what really stinks about this bill: While working American families are facing an affordability crisis, our Republican friends prioritize special favors like this for the wealthiest corporations on the planet. These are companies that could easily afford to just follow the rules and just pay a fair market rate for access to these places.

This sets a terrible precedent. We are witnessing the wholesale commercialization of America's natural inheritance, one sweetheart deal at a time. Today, it is cables and sanctuaries. Tomorrow, it will be mining in a national monument. Next week, it will be drilling in national seashores. Where does this corporate favoritism end?

If my colleagues want to modernize telecommunications, we can do that the right way. Let's invest in broadband infrastructure. Let's address transmission issues. We can incentivize clean, local, renewable energy. We can end President Trump's crazy war on clean energy.

Sure, maybe we can have a few fiber optic cables running through marine sanctuaries, but let's do it through proper analysis and siting. Let's be careful in these very special places. We don't need this bill to enable any of these shared objectives to move forward. Let us not create sacrifice zones in America's national marine sanctuaries.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this shameless corporate giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit rich to suggest that if this became law, we would lose no environmental protections. This bill eliminates the special use permit, under which the folks who protect our national marine sanctuaries make sure that there is proper siting, proper environmental review, proper mitigation, and proper accountability for when things go wrong, and things do go wrong.

The one example I can hold out is in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary because that is something that went through the special use permit process. It was for one of these undersea cable landings. Things got very complicated.

Thankfully, the National Park Service was able to charge market rent for the rights to go through this area, and it turns out that that was a good thing because there were all sorts of complications. In fact, there are still all types of ongoing repair and monitoring areas where things weren't installed properly and where there was all sorts of damage that wasn't foreseen on the front end.

Having that fair market value paid in the first place and then retained by the Federal agency that may need to follow up and make sure that these special places are protected is very important.

Mr. Westerman has suggested that the existing special use permit sets a fair market value that is just so prohibitive that none of these landings will ever happen in marine sanctuaries. The estimates from lobbyists are that without this bill, two 20-mile segments through a California sanctuary would cost these huge tech companies between $2.8 million and $7 million per year.

To put that in perspective, in the time that we have been arguing, these companies have made more than that. This is pocket change to these companies. They can afford to pay fair market value in order to go through our national marine sanctuaries.

As Mr. Westerman I am sure would not disagree, if they were proposing to run these things through a national park in Hot Springs, Arkansas, for example, it is a good thing they would have to get a special permit to do that, that they would have to pay fair market value, and that the funds they pay would be available to that unit of the National Park System to make sure things were done right and to make sure that there was accountability and mitigation going forward. We are just asking for the same thing for our national marine sanctuaries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), who is from the Central Coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very selective concern about national security, apparently, because right now, every one of these landings has a publicly available map. The whole world knows where everything is. If my friends were concerned about the national security exposure that that presents, you would think we would be working on some way to make that less of a publicly obvious piece of information. No, we are not hearing about that. We are hearing it raised as a bit of a pretext here to try to run these projects through national marine sanctuaries rent- free and environmental review-free. One of the speakers across the aisle actually said a few moments ago that there is no need for a special use permit, that it is ridiculous to require one because there is no environmental impact to these projects.

We have heard about what happened off the Oregon coast. Certainly, the people of the Oregon coast would differ mightily with the notion that there is no environmental impact. They are still cleaning up the mess, and taxpayers ultimately had to do it.

We also have the example from the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary that I referred to earlier. This, of course, is a tough place to work on the seafloor. It is mud. It is sensitive habitat. Fishermen are active in the area. There are national security assets there. There is the Northwest Training and Testing Range, so it is a complicated place to do a project like this.

It is a good thing that NOAA was able to charge market fees when they approved a special use permit that took into account all of these complexities, because those fees ended up being very necessary.

This project had huge issues over the last 25 years. The sea plow that was used to trench across the sanctuary left a 3-meter wide gash across the sea floor that is still recovering. Tell me about no environmental impacts.

The installation company never did post-project monitoring. They left the project without checking that the cables were even buried to the correct depths. NOAA had to come back in with submersible equipment to monitor the cables. It is a good thing they had the resources to do that from those market fees because they found numerous locations where the cable was exposed, floating above the sea floor, putting the fiberoptic infrastructure itself at risk--if we care about national security and telecommunications integrity--and posing a danger to other sanctuary users and their gear. A fishing boat, for example, could have easily gotten snagged on some of these exposed, loose cables, taking down the entire network, destroying equipment, that a small business fishermen had invested in.

To this day the fiberoptic company has to enter that sanctuary regularly in order to repair and rebury the cables that were improperly installed. All of this would have been an even greater mess had this bill been law at the time, had NOAA been unable to put some conditions and some guardrails into the special use permit, had NOAA been unable to charge that fair market fee that has enabled it to follow up and clean up some of this mess.

That is what at risk if we pass a thoughtless corporate giveaway like this.

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