RED Tape Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1174 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee reported on a rule, House Resolution 1174, that provides for consideration of four measures.

The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 6387, H.R. 6398, and H.R. 6409, each 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 Energy and Commerce or their designees, and provides for each bill one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H. Res. 1156, expressing support for tax policies that support working families, 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 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 provides an opportunity for Congress to rein in regulatory overreach, to restore common sense for our environmental policies, and to ensure that American communities are not punished for circumstances beyond their control.

For far too long, States, workers, and job creators have been forced to operate under a system that is overly rigid and increasingly bureaucratic and disconnected from reality. Instead of working with States, Federal regulators have imposed one-size-fits-all policies that drive up costs, delay projects, and make it harder for communities to grow and to prosper.

These measures begin to correct that course and put us on a more practical and more predictable path forward.

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act. This legislation addresses a simple but important problem. States are currently being penalized for emissions that they have absolutely no control over. That includes pollution originating from foreign countries like China, as well as natural events such as wildfires beyond our borders. Yet under current policy, those emissions can still count against a State's ability to meet Federal air quality standards.

This is not how this should work, and we have seen the impact firsthand. In my home State of New York, communities across western New York and the southern tier have repeatedly experienced severe air quality impacts from Canadian wildfires.

This has become a reoccurring issue year after year. Smoke from wildfires in Ontario and Quebec have drifted south, triggering air quality alerts across our State. Families have been told to stay indoors. Schools, camps, and outdoor events have been disrupted and canceled. What should be time spent outside during the summer has, instead, meant staying inside because of conditions beyond anyone's control locally.

In parts of New York, we have seen some of the worst air quality readings in the entire country on these days.

This does not affect just families. It affects local economies, as well. Small businesses, outdoor workers, farmers, and manufacturers all feel the impact when air quality restrictions tighten because of pollution they did not create in the first place.

Yet, under the current framework, those same communities can still face consequences--more regulation and more restrictions--for conditions entirely outside of their control. It makes no sense.

The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by making clear that foreign emissions, whether manmade or natural, should not be used to penalize States when determining compliance.

It allows States to account for those emissions earlier in the process instead of forcing them into costly delays, stricter requirements, or potential Federal penalties at the very end because the reality is simple, States like New York should not be punished for smoke coming from wildfires in another country like Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act. Across the country, communities are dealing with the growing threat of wildfires. At the same time, States are taking proactive steps to reduce the risk through prescribed burns, forest management, and other mitigation efforts.

However, under current law, those efforts can count against them when it comes to air quality compliance. Now think about that. States are being penalized for trying to prevent catastrophic wildfires. This isn't just backwards. It creates a system that punishes proactive solutions and rewards inaction.

Part of the problem is how the current system treats those emissions. While naturally occurring wildfires can sometimes be considered exceptional events, the very tools used to prevent those wildfires, like prescribed burns, are often treated the same as emissions from a factory. That is a clear gap in the law, and it leads to confusion, inconsistent decisions, and unnecessary delays for States trying to do the right thing.

The result is a system that discourages mitigation even though we know that proactive land management reduces the severity of wildfires and improves long-term air quality. The consequences are real. When States are discouraged from carrying out these efforts, the risk of larger, more destructive wildfires only increases, leading to worse air quality, greater damage, and higher costs for communities.

The FIRE Act fixes this by ensuring that emissions from wildfire mitigation activities are treated appropriately under the Clean Air Act. It brings consistency on how we treat emissions from wildfires and from the efforts used to prevent them, and it provides States with the clarity and predictability that we need to plan and to act.

It also reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens on manufacturers and local communities while still maintaining strong environmental protections for communities. This is about encouraging smart land management, reducing long-term risk, and recognizing that proactive solutions should not be met with Federal penalties.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act. This measure takes aim at a specific and unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy that continues to slow down projects across the country.

Right now, when a Federal agency completes an environmental impact statement, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to conduct a separate review and publicly comment on that work, even in cases where the EPA has already been involved in developing it.

That second review often covers the exact same ground. It adds time. It adds cost. It adds uncertainty, without meaningfully improving any outcomes.

We do not have to look far to see how duplication and delay affect real projects. In upstate New York, Micron announced a historic investment to bring advanced semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States, an investment expected to support thousands and thousands of good-paying jobs and strengthen our domestic supply chain.

This is exactly the kind of project we should be encouraging and putting a rocket booster on, but like many large-scale projects, it has to navigate a complex and very time-consuming environmental review process across multiple levels of government. That is the broader issue. It is not about identifying new risks. It is about how layers of review can stack on top of one another, adding delay and uncertainty, even when high standards are already being met.

The consequences are real. When projects like this one are delayed, jobs are delayed, investment is delayed, and our ability to compete globally, especially in critical industries like semiconductors, is put at risk at a time when we are trying to onshore these critical industries and strengthen our domestic supply chain. This is exactly what is wrong with this approach.

The reality is that the agencies responsible for these projects already have the expertise and the legal responsibility to conduct thorough environmental reviews. They prepare detailed environmental impact statements. They consult with experts and are accountable for the decisions that they make. The EPA is often already involved in that process as it develops.

What this bill addresses is the additional, duplicative step that comes after the work has already been completed. Nothing in this legislation prevents coordination or input during the review itself. It simply removes a redundant requirement that adds delay without adding value.

Recent Supreme Court precedent has reinforced this approach, recognizing that the agencies responsible for a project are best positioned to evaluate its environmental impacts that the scope of review should remain focused and practical.

The RED Tape Act reflects that reality. It removes the duplicative requirement. It streamlines the process, and it ensures that projects that meet the standard can move forward without unnecessary delay because right now too often projects are not being stopped, they are just being slowed down by process.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 1156. Mr. Speaker, today is tax day, and families across the country are sitting down to file their returns and take a closer look at what they owe and what they keep. It is a significant day because it is a direct reminder of how the decisions that we make here in Washington show up in people's lives.

Last year, House Republicans passed and the President signed into law H.R. 1, the Working Families Tax Cut Act, one of the largest tax cuts for working and middle-class Americans in history. The law prevented a $2.6 trillion tax increase on families making less than $400,000 a year, and it continues to deliver real savings to millions of Americans.

Today, as families file their taxes, they are seeing the impact of these policies firsthand. For a family of four earning under $73,000, it can mean no Federal income tax at all, and the relief is targeted where it matters the most: no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, tax relief for our senior citizens in their golden years. These are changes that show up directly in what families owe, what they keep, and how they plan for the year ahead.

Mr. Speaker, this is just the beginning. In 2026 alone, this law is expected to deliver $191 billion in additional tax relief, putting more money back in the pockets of American families, including roughly $1,000 more in refunds. Taxpayers are projected to take home an additional $91 billion in refunds and keep another $30 billion in their paychecks through reduced withholdings.

The benefits don't stop there. This law locks in lower tax rates; strengthens the standard deduction; expands the child tax credit to $2,200, and indexes it to inflation; and provides continued relief through policy like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and expanded support for childcare, paid leave, and savings. These policies are helping families keep more of what they earn, plan for their future, and build greater financial stability.

This resolution recognizes the impact of H.R. 1 and reaffirms our commitment to making sure working families come first. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Once again, the Democrats are trying to distract from the facts by recycling the same class warfare talking points, even as Americans across the country are sitting down this week to file their taxes and see the reality for themselves. Families are running the numbers. They are looking at what they owe and what they keep. Filing is simpler. For working people, that matters.

Republicans passed this bill without a single Democratic vote. It was signed into law by President Trump, and 91 percent of tax filers now have a simpler tax code. Families pay no Federal income tax on the first $31,000 that they earn. The standard deduction is locked and loaded and expanded, which means less paperwork, less time spent dealing with the IRS, and more money staying in families' budgets.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the biggest beneficiaries of this relief are workers and families making less than $50,000 a year. That is why the rhetoric we keep hearing from Democrats doesn't line up with reality, especially for Americans sitting at their kitchen table filing their taxes right now.

This is relief for the server pulling a double, the factory worker on the line trying to work a few extra hours of overtime, the barber running a small shop, and families trying to get ahead.

Unfortunately, while Republicans fought to ensure that hardworking Americans keep more of their paychecks, because it is their money and not Uncle Sam's, Democrats under President Biden chose a different path. They flooded the post-COVID economy with trillions of dollars in new spending. They overheated the economy and drove inflation to 40- year highs. Working families were left to carry that burden that they still have a hangover on today.

Rather than empowering the American people, Democrats prioritized massive giveaways to political allies through Green New Deal-style programs that layer costly, ineffective regulations. Those policies were not paid for in Washington. They were paid for by families at the gas pump and the grocery store.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump and House Republicans have consistently worked to unleash the full potential of the American economy so that every American who works for a living can benefit.

In stark contrast, Democrats in the last administration chose runaway spending, regulatory access, and leaving everyday Americans to pay the price through skyrocketing costs for basic necessities. Their policies hurt working families. Republican policies have helped working families, and that brings us back to the rule before us today.

This legislation before us makes sure that States are not punished for what they cannot control, supports efforts to prevent disasters before they happen, not after, cuts through red tape that delay jobs and investment, and reinforces policies that help working families keep more of what they earn.

That is what is before the House today. We are hearing concerns that this bill somehow weakens air quality protections or harms public health, but that misses what this legislation actually does. At its core, it is about fairness.

Right now, States can be penalized for emissions that they have absolutely no control over. No one in Buffalo, New York, or western New York, or the southern tier has any impact on Canadian policy on how they manage their forests or why their forests catch on fire every summer. Whether it is pollution coming from those foreign countries or background conditions beyond our control, that is not a system that makes sense.

When that happens, entire regions can fall out of compliance through no fault of their own, making it harder to build new facilities, modernize infrastructure, or bring jobs back to communities that need them the most.

That has real consequences not just for economic growth but for the well-being of the people that live there.

This bill fixes that problem. It ensures that States are judged based on what they can actually control while keeping the same underlying health-based air quality standards fully in place.

Let's be clear: Nothing in this legislation changes those standards. The protections remain. What we are addressing is how those standards are applied in the real world so that communities are not unfairly punished and locked out of economic opportunity. That matters because modernizing facilities here at home means cleaner technology, stronger environmental oversight, and fewer emissions being outsourced overseas.

While there are efforts to frame this as a rollback, it is actually about making the system workable, more predictable, and more grounded in reality. That is what this bill does and that is why it is needed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want to lecture us on the environment, but let's take a look at their record.

For 4 years in the last administration, they pushed policies that were more about ideology than results. They drove up costs. They added layers of bureaucracy. They made it harder for States and communities to actually manage real environmental challenges.

They created a system that punishes States for factors outside of their control. It discourages proactive solutions and slows down projects with duplicative and unnecessary reviews. That is not environmental leadership. It is regulatory overreach.

Now, under President Trump's leadership, we are taking a more practical approach. We are focusing on policies that actually work by supporting States, encouraging prevention, and cutting through red tape that has held back progress for years. The difference is very clear.

Democrats defend a system that is more complicated, more expensive, and less effective. Republicans are focused on making environmental policy more predictable, more efficient, and more grounded in reality.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the legislation in this rule does. It makes clear that States shouldn't be penalized for emissions they can't control, including pollution from foreign countries and wildfire smoke drifting across our borders. It supports proactive wildfire mitigation instead of punishing States for taking steps to prevent catastrophic fires. It removes duplicative Federal review processes that slow down projects without improving environmental outcomes.

It is not partisan. It is common sense. We have heard a lot from the other side that the EPA already has the tools to deal with wildfire emissions and that this bill is unnecessary. If that were true, we would not be here today.

The reality is, the current system doesn't work. It is broken, and while EPA can exclude certain emissions as exceptional events, the process is complicated, time consuming, and, in many cases, unworkable for States.

Mr. Speaker, here is the real problem. Under the current law, emissions from wildfire can only qualify as exceptional events, but emissions from prescribed burns used to prevent those wildfires do not.

Think about that. States are effectively penalized for taking proactive steps to reduce wildfire risk. That is just totally backward.

As a result, many States don't even attempt to use the existing process because it is too burdensome, too uncertain, and too resource intensive. In fact, for years, States and local agencies were unable to successfully use this process for prescribed burns.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about creating a loophole. It is about fixing a system that is clearly not working. The FIRE Act removes this barrier. It gives States the certainty that they need to carry out responsible wildfire mitigation without risking noncompliance with Federal air quality standards.

That matters because prescribed burns are not the problem. They are

part of the solution. They reduce the intensity of wildfires. They lower long-term emissions, and they help prevent the devastating economic and environmental damage that we see from large-scale fires like we saw in California.

States should not have to choose between meeting air quality standards and preventing wildfires. This bill makes sure that they don't have to.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the words ``purely political gain,'' and I completely respect the work that the Committee on Appropriations has done this year. Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro did a beautiful job navigating a process that has led us for fiscal year 2026 to get all but one of our appropriations bills passed with bipartisan support.

They had a bipartisan agreement on how to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but it wasn't until the Democrats on the other side of the aisle figured that they had to answer to their political base that they decided to throw the biggest political temper tantrum in the history of the

country. Here we sit with a Department still shut down, and they still won't agree to fund the entire Department. In fact, nearly every one of the Members, all but a few courageous Democrats, have voted against funding the Department of Homeland Security in its entirety time and time again right here in the House of Representatives. It is a matter of public record.

Let's be honest about who is responsible for the shutdown. Republicans have put forward serious, good-faith efforts to fund the Department of Homeland Security and keep these critical operations running. It is Democrats that chose to walk away time and again, over and over. It is Democrats who chose to play politics with funding for agencies that protect the American people every single day. They did that knowing full well what is at stake: funding for FEMA and disaster response, our Coast Guard operations, and other core Homeland Security functions.

That was all put at risk because Democrats refused to engage. They made the decision to do that. They were willfully aware that certain parts of the Department, like ICE, were already funded through the end of the year. This wasn't about policy. It was all about political theatrics, and it is all that we have had for the last 40, 50 days.

The consequences are real. Since Democrats shut down DHS, we saw violent attacks at Old Dominion University, the Temple Israel synagogue in Michigan, and in Austin, Texas, and we saw a massive cyberattack on the Stryker Corporation. This is no time to be playing politics with the safety of our homeland. Instead of stepping up, Democrats chose to step back, and now they come to the floor trying to shift the blame, hoping the American people will forget who actually walked away from funding the very agencies responsible for protecting them.

The facts are clear: Republicans are working to fund the government and keep Americans safe. Democrats chose to shut it down.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

For years, Democrats have told the American people not to believe what they can see with their own eyes. They have defended a system that penalizes States for emissions they don't control, discourages wildfire prevention, and buries job-creating projects under layers of unnecessary bureaucracy.

The legislation under this rule today takes real steps towards fixing those failures--restoring fairness to our air quality standards, supporting proactive wildfire mitigation, cutting red tape that delays jobs and investment, and reaffirming tax relief for working families through H.R. 1.

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, pursuant to the order of the House of April 15, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 40) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the speech that he just gave. It is probably the most hypocritical speech that anybody could give, but I am glad he gave it because the truth is I am well prepared to answer for this.

Let's talk about engagements against Iran and what is going on. This is not the first time that this happened. Joe Biden was engaged against Iran.

Why?

It is because of an imminent threat.

Let's examine the difference between when Joe Biden was engaged and when President Trump was engaged. When Joe Biden engaged, it is because the Houthis, a direct arm of Iran, were attacking the United States of America's ships and merchant marine vessels and doing what they have been doing for decades: picking a fight.

Mr. Biden launched Operation Prosperity Guardian against Iranian- backed Houthis. That went on not for 30 days, not for 60 days, not for 90 days, and not for 6 months. It went on for almost 1 year until January of 2025, from November 2023 until January 2025.

What happened during that period of time?

How many times did my Democratic colleagues or Republicans offer a War Powers resolution to say: Remove all U.S. forces from this fight against Iran?

I have the counter down here. It is zero.

It wasn't like what happened with President Trump. President Trump is defending against an imminent threat.

What was this imminent threat?

It wasn't just vessels being shot. It was, very specifically, not long before that, three Americans killed at a place called Tower 22: Sergeant Rivers, 46 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves; Sergeant Sanders, 24 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves, and Sergeant Moffett, 23 years old, serving in the U.S. Army Reserves. These are real imminent threats. Our bases in Iraq, Syria, and other places were being attacked.

However, before President Trump ever conducted any level of operation, Democrats introduced legislation to direct the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran, a war powers introduced before anything ever happened.

Now, if we go back here to President Biden, there were a couple of pieces of legislation that took place bipartisanly. One of them I brought up many times. It was Republicans and Democrats voting overwhelmingly to tell the President, tell the executive branch, literally: Use any and all means necessary to destroy Iranian nuclear anything. That is what we told the President. That is what we told the executive branch. My colleague voted on it. I voted on it.

It was not war powers, not to say remove all U.S. forces from hostilities, not like Democrats have brought up before this began and then again bringing it up, stopping before a B-2 bomber struck, not again when they introduced it this time, you know, 6/26, 6/27, not on 1/29, not on 2/18. The list goes on and on again and again and again. Today, again, we are doing another war powers.

What changed? What changed from not one war powers from anybody to half a dozen? I guess we are going to do another one next week. Politics. Everything that my colleague just talked about, his hypocritical remarks about we need to do these things, it is all politics.

My Democratic colleagues are not paying attention to national security at all. They refuse to acknowledge the imminent threat that Iran has been: them killing our servicemembers, them attacking us in place after place. They don't acknowledge it.

When Joe Biden was responding to merchant marine vessels being attacked, it was okay, no war powers needed. It went on for about a year. When President Trump responds: War powers, war powers, war powers, war powers, every week that they can do it. They tried doing it last week, as well. That is the hypocrisy.

My colleague brought up some of our servicemembers who were killed. I take that very seriously. I have seen that beautiful flag behind the Speaker draped across caskets far too many times. I take it seriously every time. I personally believe that any time that a servicemember is killed, they should be lying in state, lying in honor here beneath the dome of the U.S. Capitol. I think they earn it more than anybody, anybody killed in action in defense of this country. That is my own personal belief on that.

I want to ask my colleague: Do you know the folks? Do you know the folks who were killed that you mentioned? Do you know their names? You brought up a number. Is that just politics? I know I am supposed to address the Chair, but I am happy to yield a little time to my colleague.

Do you know the members of the military that were killed?

He is sitting there silent, just using it for politics.

My brothers and sisters in arms are not politics. They are out defending the United States of America against the most imminent threat that we have faced for decades, a threat that has killed hundreds of our servicemembers in the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, that, as I already mentioned, killed three of our servicemembers at Tower 22, absolutely was shooting at us and our merchant marine fleet, like what they had nothing to say about when President Biden was conducting attacks against them for over a year, but I am going to tell you who they are, since to my Democratic colleagues, they are just a number for politics.

Army Sergeant Declan Coady, 20 years old, from Des Moines, Iowa; Army Captain Cody Khork, 35 years old; Army Major Jeffrey O'Brien, 45 years old; Army Master Sergeant Noah Tietjens, 45 years old; Army Staff Sergeant Benjamin Pennington; Air Force Major John Klinner; Chief Warrant Officer Robert Marzan, Army; Air Force Master Sergeant Tyler Simmons; Air Force Tech Sergeant Ashley Pruitt; Master Sergeant Nicole Amor; Major Savino; Captain Koval, U.S. Air Force; Captain Angst, KC- 135 pilot.

They are not just numbers. They are not part of an operation that has no

plan. They are not part of an operation responding to no imminent threat. They are taking it to an enemy that has attacked us month after month, year after year, that bipartisanly we have agreed on: Use any and all means to destroy them, to destroy their nuclear capabilities. We voted on it. The only difference is that my Democratic colleagues want to reference a number of servicemembers killed because they just see it as politics. They don't have the slightest clue of who they are, where they are from, what their ages were, or their respect for the Gold Star families that now exist. They are only interested in the difference in politics, which is what these charts demonstrate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the gentlewoman who just spoke was the one who said, to directly quote her, Americans are ``leverage.'' I guess that is how they look at our servicemembers, as well, unfortunately. I don't guess. I assess. I assess, as I spoke about already and reaffirm my remarks, they use our servicemembers as leverage, as politics, and it is disgusting.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), chairman of the Europe Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my colleague who just spoke that Iran, as of yet, does not have a missile that can reach the United States of America that we know about, but they have reached out and affirmatively killed Americans. I just gave a list. Prior to this conflict ever beginning, Sergeant Moffett, Sergeant Sanders, and Sergeant Rivers were killed, killed in action.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should probably stick around for this.

They might be the most vicious regime, but they don't have the teeth that they had before. As he pointed out, we sunk their Navy. We have destroyed their Air Force, their drone manufacturing facilities, their caches of weapons, their mobile launching platforms, and their fixed launching platforms.

We are, as we speak, in the midst of a cease-fire. In the midst of a cease-fire, my colleagues--the words I want to use would probably be taken down, but let's just say, in an ill-advised way--want to say, remove all U.S. Forces in the midst of this cease-fire that we are in. That is crazy.

They talk about wanting diplomacy, but they don't. This goes back to what I opened up with. It is all pure politics for my colleagues.

You have Joe Biden. He is launching attacks against these Iranian forces for almost a year, not one War Power Resolution. President Trump, half a dozen of them, and we will do another one next week.

They want to talk about servicemembers, but they can't tell you who they are because it is just a number to them.

They want to put more support into supporting Ukraine in a conflict where no American has been killed yet. Mind you, I have no love for Russia whatsoever, but when it comes to Iran who has been killing Americans, nothing. Crickets. It is pure politics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a miscalculation to tell the military to end a war, a conflict, a battle, or anything else. We work to end threats. We work to eliminate imminent threats against the United States of America.

There is a very important difference there to think that this was not thoroughly calculated, the approach at which this goes of destroying surface to air, then bringing in different aircraft, sinking a Navy, destroying drone manufacturing, every single target calculated in very, very specific orders.

Either you believe that about our military, or you don't. I can tell you that I know for a fact that is exactly the way that our military has conducted this operation: in a pinpointed, methodical, pedantic drumbeat of a way to address targets in a very specific order over and over again, only paused because of the ongoing negotiations and cease- fire that my colleagues want to say to remove all forces in the midst of.

That is their demand today: Remove all forces, as they have demanded in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that we have a President who knows where he is and can find his way on or off of a stage. I know my colleagues had to literally remove their President that they did not ask for any war powers authorities for when he was conducting his attacks against Iran for about 1 year. They didn't ask for that even though it was somebody who they literally removed from the ballot because of senility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will educate my colleague that the United States of America goes to the greatest lengths to use the most pinpointed weapons, at great expense, precision

weapons over and over again, so that if any civilian is killed, it is tragic, but it is never anything more than an accident because of the efforts that we go to, to be pinpointed in any strike that we carry out. That is a fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hoped that my colleague who was just speaking would stay for more debate, but I would be curious. The gentlewoman intends to vote to tell the President that all U.S. Forces must be removed from hostilities. Do they feel as though that is a sound strategy to reach the conclusion that they want in the midst of a cease-fire? It sounds like they haven't calculated that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentlewoman is still here. Does she really not know why we are there? She really doesn't know about the American servicemembers who were killed even before this who I mentioned? She doesn't know about the American bases that were struck? Really? You are a Member of Congress who does not know this?

That is crazy. I will leave it at that. I will leave it at that for this moment, but we can get you classified briefings on this. We would be having one today were it not for this debate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would let my colleague that was just speaking know that almost all Democrats and Republicans literally gave the President the direction, voted, to include the top Democrat that is walking up right now, to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is literally what they voted for, gave the direction: use any and all means necessary.

I have said it many times. I am saying it again. It is exactly what they voted for. The difference today is politics. The difference today is it is not Joe Biden, who can't find his way off a stage. It is President Trump. That is why there were zero war powers resolutions under Joe Biden and half a dozen or more at this point for President Trump--pure politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the minority leader.

When my Democrat colleagues come down here and just lie, they are deserving of ad hominem attacks. When they come down here and try to say something about servicemembers killed but didn't take the time to learn a thing about them, learn their names, where they are from, but just want a number, you are deserving of an ad hominem attack.

When the minority leader comes to the floor and tries to say--even though he has had various Gang of Eight meetings and things like that; more classified briefings than even I have had--and tries to pretend that he doesn't know the intelligence, what General Caine is doing, the methodical approach to what is going on here, the very slim number of Iranian ordnance that are making it past our defenses, the commitments of our allies, or the threats of them obtaining a nuclear weapon or what they would do with it, like the way Russia threatens the rest of world, he is deserving of an ad hominem attack, and so is everybody else.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the President for all the work he has done working to end an imminent threat against the United States of America.

My Democrat colleagues used to agree that it was an imminent threat. They did. They wisely agreed that it was an imminent threat. They voted, as I have said many times, literally to say--my colleague over there, the one who was just speaking--``use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' They voted on it.

They voted on it numerous times to say the existential threat that Iran is against us. They just don't believe it when the name is President Trump.

When it is Joe Biden, no War Powers Resolutions. When it is President Trump, do them every week, do them every day. No longer do they believe that they are an imminent threat. No longer do they believe use any and all means necessary.

I think my Democratic colleagues really want America to lose. I think they want America to lose. That is why in the midst of this cease-fire that is going on, they are literally offering a resolution to say: Remove any and all U.S. forces from hostilities in or within Iran. I believe that is out of a desire to lose.

It is really sad. They are over there laughing as we speak. As I levy an accusation that they want America to lose, they are over here chuckling and laughing. That is sad. I can see them mouth: He said that I am sad.

I am sad. I am sad that my colleagues talk about the numbers of servicemembers killed, but they don't know a thing about them. That is sad.

He is waving his hand.

I am sad that my colleagues want the United States to lose, and they sit there and laugh about it.

That is sad.

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

Mr. Speaker, they have no time remaining to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just close it with this: It is sad. It is sad that they are over there laughing about this.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, at the end of March, last month, Speaker Johnson gaveled out this Chamber and sent Members of Congress home for a 2-week recess. He did so despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down for 60 days and counting, despite the fact that President Trump had made a reckless and unlawful declaration of war without congressional authorization, despite soaring gas prices and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis stretching from New York, the home of my distinguished colleague, to Colorado, despite the heat, the drought, and the wildfire records being shattered in the Western United States. Despite all of that, Speaker Johnson made the decision to gavel the House out of session and send everybody home.

Now, we are back. The 2-week recess has concluded. What has the Republican majority decided is the most pressing challenge and issue for this august body to debate?

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, it is a resolution commemorating a bill that Republicans passed last year. That is what we are here to debate.

Republicans control the floor. They could put a bill on the floor to address cost-of-living issues. They could put a bill on the floor to address soaring gas prices. They could put a bill on the floor to address rising healthcare costs. Instead, we are here to debate a commemorative resolution. It is absurd.

I have, over the course of the 7 years that I have had the privilege of serving in the United States House, never seen something quite like this. It doesn't

really take a resolution, Mr. Speaker, for them to extol what they believe to be the benefits of the bill that they passed last year, the tax bill, which we will talk about today.

My point, Mr. Speaker, is that this resolution is wholly unnecessary. There are better ways to spend our time.

I heard the gentleman from New York's long description of the many reasons why that particular resolution that I referenced merits this body's passage. What I found interesting is that over the last 12 months that I have come down here to the House floor, I have heard Republicans use the same refrain in describing this bill: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is in the law.

For a year, I have heard nothing but tweets, Truth Social posts, and floor speeches extolling the virtues of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. What is fascinating is that I didn't hear those four words this morning. I suspect I am not going to hear them the rest of today because Republicans spent some time and have come up with a new name--a new name, a rebrand.

This bill that President Trump signed into law, which gave tax cuts to the richest Americans among us, is so unpopular that Republicans decided that they had to change the name.

I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the rebrand, Mr. Speaker, is going to work. I don't think the name is what the American people were frustrated by. What they are frustrated by is a bill that kicked off 15 million Americans from their healthcare, a bill that amounted to the largest cut in SNAP in the history of our country, a bill that added $5 trillion over the next decade to the Federal debt. That is what they are frustrated about.

They can call this bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act--what is the name now? Maybe the gentleman from New York will indulge me. The working families tax cut, that is what they are calling it now. I suspect, in a few months, they will change the name again because it is not going to change the unpopularity of their policies.

I know this isn't the only resolution that we are debating today, as the gentleman from New York mentioned at great length. We are going to consider three bills from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which seek to amend the Clean Air Act in an effort to scale back regulations that protect air quality from pollutants and polluting industries.

There is no debate that these policies could have wide-ranging implications that would allow large swathes of the United States to be exempt from various rules under the Clean Air Act.

I don't, to be candid, Mr. Speaker, really follow the argument that my friend from New York is making. As I understand it, what he is saying is that there are wide swathes of the country, including in his home State--by the way, this applies to my home State as well--where you have pollution that exceeds the standards that have been set by regulators at the national level. That pollution is causing asthma and respiratory diseases in children.

The solution that they propose is to allow communities that are experiencing this kind of pollution to essentially exempt foreign sources of pollution from those standards so that they don't have to do anything about it.

That is their solution. The air quality is not going to get any better. There will be no prophylactic steps taken by those communities. It is just a way for those communities to no longer have to do anything about pollution. It is absurd, and the American people know it.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say--and I imagine we will have a robust debate about the three bills and the resolution that I referenced. Fundamentally, I suppose if I were to conclude with one overriding sentiment, it is that I am simply asking my Republican colleagues to get serious.

There are a lot of challenges facing the country. It is a difficult time for the families that I represent in northern Colorado and in western Colorado. Times are tough. This House, I believe, could rise to the occasion and actually work together to get some things done for the American people, for the constituents that we all serve. This is not that.

Spare us the commemorative resolutions honoring bills that you all have passed. Let's just skip those, and let's get back to doing the business that the American people expect us to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. First, again, we have heard ad nauseam about the various ways, in the view of my colleagues, that the bill that they passed last year has benefited the American public. I disagree. My constituents disagree, but we are not debating that bill today. We are debating--for those who might be watching this, I encourage everybody to look it up--H. Res. 1156. It is a two-page resolution. It is not particularly long. This resolution does nothing, achieves nothing, and changes nothing. It is a commemorative resolution honoring a law that they passed last year. It is a waste of time.

What are we doing? Seriously. This is how the Republican majority chooses to spend its time?

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do next week? Are you going to introduce a different commemorative resolution that honors maybe this resolution that passes today? Maybe that is what we should count on, I guess.

If this resolution passes today, Mr. Langworthy and I will debate next week a second resolution that honors this resolution.

Give me a break. There are better ways for the House of Representatives to spend its time. These are serious issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I co-chair the Bipartisan Wildfire Caucus. I have worked with my Republican colleagues on a number of wildfire resiliency and forest management bills, proposals, and securing funding. I will not be lectured by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they work to defund the Forest Service, literally, about wildfire resiliency and prescribed burns.

There is no question that, at least with respect to the FIRE Act--I understand we are debating multiple bills with respect to the Clean Air Act, but in terms of the FIRE Act, Mr. Evans' bill, it does nothing. I mean, existing processes within the EPA provide for precisely the type of relief that he is seeking in this bill.

The bill is, again, completely unnecessary. It is also not going anywhere. We, of course, know that to be the case. In any event, I digress.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and thank her for her leadership, I might just say, Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from New York wax very poetically about the importance of the big or not the Big Beautiful Bill Act--whatever they are calling it now--the working families bill or something like that that they have come up with.

There are 218 Republicans in the House of Representatives, give or take. I presume, given the importance of this commemorative resolution, that there perhaps might be some colleagues who are going to join my colleague from New York to talk on this bill?

Mr. Speaker, might I ask you to pose that question to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy)? Does he anticipate any colleagues coming to the floor or just him?

Mr. Speaker, I hope he does. I suspect the answer is ``no.'' I suspect that Mr. Langworthy is here alone and that he will be the only Republican who has been tasked with arguing in favor of this really important commemorative resolution that we are all so eager to vote on.

Mr. Speaker, in any event, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7417, the bipartisan compromise bill that the Senate unanimously passed twice now--twice--to fund the law-abiding agencies within DHS.

Mr. Speaker, this is the deal. You know it. I know it. At the end of the day, the compromise legislation that the Senate passed twice was deprived of a vote on this floor by Republicans. Not a single Senator objected to this bill, twice.

The Republican Senate majority leadership authored the motion, but House Republican leadership refuses to take it up. As a result, it is perpetuating the shutdown of DHS by not putting that deal on the floor.

Members who want to end the shutdown ought to join us in defeating the previous question to put this bipartisan compromise on the floor today.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We are grateful to her for her leadership.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

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

Madam Speaker, a lot of political rhetoric again. I think the American people know the facts. They know that the Senate passed a bill twice on a unanimous basis to fund DHS. It is not complicated. The United States Senate passed the bill. Not a single Senator objected. The United States Senate passed the bill again. Not a single Senator objected. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate, approved of this bill. They sent it here. It is sitting at the Clerk's desk. If we voted on it today, my guess is 90 percent of the House of Representatives would vote for it. The only reason we are not is because the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has decided we are not going to vote on it. That is it.

The rest of it, they can try to confuse the American public and describe to them the play-by-play of the last 65 days. Again, it is not complicated. There is a bill sitting at the Clerk's desk to fund DHS that every Republican Senator, every Democratic Senator, and 90 percent of this body support. The only reason we are not voting on it is politics because Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has decided that he won't allow it. That is it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am prepared to close, but I will say that I am doing this very begrudgingly because I was hoping that we might be able to have some colloquies with my colleague from New York with his colleagues on H. Res. 1156. I know how important this commemorative resolution is to the Republican Conference, and I would be loath to deprive my colleague from New York with the opportunity to have a fulsome debate on it.

Is there no Republican in the House of Representatives who is willing to come down to the floor to extol the virtues of the big, beautiful bill--or the working families bill that they have renamed? None, Madam Speaker?

Was that--

Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify something that the Speaker said. That is not the name of the bill. Just to be clear, I encourage anybody who is watching to go online and pull up the bill. It is, I think, about 350 pages. The one phrase that you will not find in the entirety of the bill is ``Working Families Tax Cuts,'' Madam Speaker. It is nowhere.

I checked. I checked yesterday during the Committee on Rules. I checked again before I came to the floor just to be sure, so I don't know where you came up with that name, Madam Speaker. I am not even really sure who has come up with it in the Republican Conference. Somebody, a marketing guru in the Republican Conference I think convinced the Speaker, and I suppose said to him: ``Look, this bill is deeply unpopular. President Trump is deeply unpopular, more unpopular than any President in the modern history of our country. We have got to do something different, and I have got an idea. We will just come up with a new name for the bill; a new name, resolution honoring that new name that will convince them. I am sure that will get the American public on our side.'' Fascinating.

Madam Speaker, week after week, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opted to take up a variety of legislation. The one common thread is that it fails to meet the moment.

Americans sent us here to work on the issues that they care most about, that have the most impact on their everyday lives: the rising affordability crisis, expanding access to affordable healthcare, protecting our environment and public resources; not to gut air pollution standards and pass commemorative resolutions patting themselves on the back. That is not how Congress should be spending its precious time.

The bills before us do nothing to improve the lives of working families in our country. It is why I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my War Powers Resolution, and I do so today because the Constitution of the United States actually demands it, and so does the conscience of the House of Representatives.

In my view, Donald Trump--and I think that in most of the world's view--has dragged the American people into a war of choice--fact-- launched without congressional authorization.

The President did not discuss or work with any of our allies. There was no coherent strategy. This was an open-ended and undefined military engagement, and that is exactly what the War Powers Resolution was designed to restrain.

However, we are here today to talk about the authority of Congress, whether you agree with the war or not. It is the authority that lies within Congress.

On February 28, the President launched an attack while negotiations between Iran and the United States were actively going on. Diplomacy was going on. Iran's foreign minister had stated just days before that a historic agreement was within reach. There was a path forward that did not require a single American servicemember to be put in harm's way. Instead of pursuing diplomacy, the President started this war, costing the American people billions of dollars, losing 13 American lives, and so many other men, women, and children who were not a party and who were civilians.

The President abandoned the diplomatic path, not because diplomacy failed, but because it was never truly given a chance. As a result of the administration's decisions, the new Iranian regime is more hard- line. The Strait of Hormuz, which was previously open, is now closed. The cost of gas for the American people has skyrocketed, and this fragile cease-fire is one threatening civilization tweet away from failing.

What has this war accomplished?

The administration and Donald Trump himself may be declaring victory, but let's look at the contradictory objectives of this administration which were used to justify the war.

First, it was that Iran posed an imminent threat, but no imminent threat was ever demonstrated. Then it was about nuclear weapons, but the administration itself had declared the nuclear program obliterated. Then it was about ballistic missiles. So you see, Mr. Speaker, the goalposts keep moving because there was never a clear objective in the beginning.

Meanwhile, as I have stated, the costs keep going up. American servicemembers have been killed, and thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children, have been killed since the beginning of this war. These are not just statistics. These are human beings, and we have a moral duty to acknowledge that reality.

Then there is the impact on gas pumps and grocery stores. This war has disrupted global travel and trade, halted flights in and out of the Middle East, and led to major shipping reroutes. Leading energy analysts warn it could be a long time before prices go down even after the war ends and that we are looking at elevated energy costs well into the end of 2026.

The 2-week cease-fire is set to expire on April 22, and thus far, neither side has indicated what comes next beyond continued blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. We are standing at the edge of a cliff, and Congress must act before the President pushes us off. Every day we delay, we inch closer to a conflict with no exit ramp.

This resolution does not leave America defenseless. It preserves the President's authority to defend the United States and our allies from imminent attack. Actually, it says, plainly and constitutionally, that one person does not have the power to take this Nation to war alone.

Just yesterday, we heard more American troops were being sent to the Middle East. The Constitution ultimately, again, no matter whether you agree with the war or do not agree with the war, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution grants the Congress, not the President, the power to declare war.

Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Even Donald Trump acknowledged this saying: As a war, you are supposed to get approval from Congress.

This is not a skirmish. This is not a military operation. This is a war.

Now, we are not the Iranian Parliament, and we should not be rubberstamps. We are the Article I branch of government, and we serve as a check and balance on Presidential overreach.

This duty is not optional. Today, this body has a choice. We can assert our constitutional authority and demand a return to the only path that leads to lasting security, diplomacy, negotiation, verification, and deterrence. Or we can surrender that authority and let this war grind on without accountability, without strategy, and without an end in sight.

It is oversight, especially on this committee. We should be having witnesses before us so that we can understand and talk and move and ultimately have a vote on this floor to determine whether or not we are going to authorize a war.

I, for example, believe in diplomacy. I also believe in the Constitution, and I choose to defend the principle that war is a last resort and not a first option. Others may disagree with me, but we should still have a vote here on the House floor.

The American people are watching. The camera of history is recording.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whether or not they agree with the war or not, let's do our duty and our responsibility. If they want to vote to declare a war, then vote that way. If they believe, as I do, we should have diplomacy and we should not be at war now, then vote that way. We are all Members of the House of Representatives. Let's protect this institution. Let's vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, you know, the gentleman is from Florida, so he knows oranges. I am from New York, the Big Apple. I know apples. The gentleman's argument, clearly, he doesn't know apples from oranges.

Let me just say this: I never challenged the gentleman's patriotism to this country. He better never challenge my patriotism to this country. To think that he has a privilege to do that? No. There is no one that has more patriotism. I have family members who lost their lives for this country. I am here because of my patriotism to this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the esteemed Democratic whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is our job to determine when our troops should go, and that is what this is about. We all support our troops, but it is our determination in Congress when we should send them, not a king.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs' Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Africa Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), an esteemed member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the minority leader and the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, I support 100 percent our troops, but I strongly disagree with anyone who would say to trust, just simply trust, the President of the United States. That is not patriotism. That is not why we are here. That is why we have separate but equal branches of government. Otherwise, it is just: Trust the king.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker emerita.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

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

A quote from Abraham Lincoln: ``Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.''

Donald Trump thinks he is a king. As I said, I support the troops, but I don't trust the President of the United States just by his saying that he knows what he is doing. Let's see what he has actually done.

March 3, Trump says the Navy will escort tankers, no matter what, and guarantee the free flow of energy to the world.

March 9, he says he is thinking about taking over the Strait of Hormuz.

March 15, he says it is someone else's problem, questions whether the U.S. should even be there, and notes we have a lot of oil, seemingly not understanding that the price of oil is based on global prices.

March 21, he threatens to bomb Iran's power plants within 48 hours if they don't open the strait.

March 26, he announces a cease-fire and says Iran has agreed to open the strait.

That same week, CENTCOM announces it is sending ships to clear mines from the strait that Iran supposedly agreed to open.

This past Sunday, April 12, he says the Navy is going to blockade the blockade and interdict ships in the strait.

The man says something one day and then something else. We had some signs up earlier of what this man has said. We had young people in here, and some of the words he used on Easter Sunday. He is supposed to be the leader of the free world, and then he puts out a picture of himself and tells you who he thinks he is. He thinks he is Jesus. He thinks he can do whatever he wants to do because he is Donald Trump. He thinks that his word is what governs.

This is a constitutional democracy, and people died to create this Congress, to make sure that this Congress is a separate but equal branch of government, and that this Congress, if you are a patriot, would stand up in oversight of a President.

Yes, that is what the people of the United States will do, and the people of the United States do not want to continue this war with this individual who says he is a king.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.

Access to quality and affordable healthcare is an issue at the top of many Americans' minds right now as they struggle through the ever- worsening Republican affordability crisis. Republicans have demonstrated over the last year that they have no interest in improving healthcare for the American people.

The Republican big, ugly bill cut more than a trillion dollars from Americans' healthcare. Insurance premiums spiked at the beginning of the year for 20 million people because Republicans refused to extend the ACA tax credits. Fifteen million people are predicted to lose their healthcare altogether. Hospitals are closing in record numbers around the country.

There was a media report just yesterday that said 15 hospitals in my State of New Jersey have the potential to close because of the Republican big, ugly bill and the impact on hospitals.

Now, there are reports that Republicans intend to make further cuts and take healthcare away from more people to pay for Trump's reckless war of choice with Iran. In Trump's America, we can't afford healthcare, but apparently, we can spend a billion dollars a day on the war in Iran. In fact, Trump himself said that it is not possible for the Federal Government to pay for Medicaid and Medicare when we are fighting wars.

Republican attacks on Americans' healthcare continue this week here on the House floor by bringing three dirty air bills to the House floor, including this bill, H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act; and also H.R. 6398, the RED Tape Act; and, finally, H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act.

These bills are an attack on the public health protections that are a cornerstone of the Clean Air Act. They will ultimately make Americans sicker and increase healthcare costs even more.

The health harms of air pollution are well-documented, being felt by communities across the country. Communities in areas with unsafe levels of air pollution see more diagnoses of diseases like asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer, all of which require long- term treatment and medication.

Air pollution, Mr. Speaker, is also responsible for over 100,000 premature deaths every year. It is ridiculous to even consider these bills when our constituents are demanding action on healthcare affordability.

Whether it is from reducing transparency, to artificially reducing air pollution reporting by ignoring climate change, to giving corporate polluters free passes on Clean Air Act requirements, these bills are evidence that Republicans are more interested in helping their pollution friends than the well-being of Americans.

The bill that we are talking about now, the FENCES Act, would undercut the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, which tells us the amount of air pollution that is safe to breathe.

The bill would have us ignore bad air quality in areas that experience any pollution beyond the jurisdiction of a State or city's borders. It removes the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to impose fees or sanctions on States that fail to make progress toward cleaning up the air.

Let me just explain this. If my hometown of Long Branch or my county of Monmouth or my State of New Jersey was getting pollution from outside that particular jurisdiction, it wouldn't count. They wouldn't have to account for that in terms of dealing with air pollution and trying to reduce it. To me, that is patently ridiculous because we know that air pollution travels across cities, across States, and even across countries. Giving States that are not even trying to improve air quality a free pass for pollution without any incentive to fix the problem is not the right way to proceed, and that is what this bill does.

If signed into law, this bill would require EPA to cook the books on air pollution in favor of industry, removing all accountability for States to clean up air pollution and leaving millions of Americans to breathe unhealthy air. The only winners here are corporate polluters who would get to save a few dollars in compliance costs.

Now Republican attempts to undermine the NAAQS aren't new. Every time the EPA strengthens an air quality standard, opponents complain that stronger public health standards will limit economic growth, but that has never been true, Mr. Speaker. Every time, industry has innovated better pollution control measures to meet the new standards.

Republicans also claim that the FENCES Act is part of their permitting reform effort, but this bill would not speed up any permitting. In fact, it

would cause complete permitting gridlock in areas with pollution that exceeds an air quality standard. This is not permitting reform.

House Republicans are trying to use accounting gimmicks to make areas with poor air quality appear much better to benefit corporate polluters at the expense of the health of Americans across the country. Pushing the FENCES Act at a moment when millions of Americans are struggling to afford their utilities, their groceries, and healthcare, in my opinion, is unconscionable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman), a member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Min).

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

The FENCES Act, Mr. Speaker, is a bad faith attempt by Republicans to use accounting gimmicks to make areas with bad air quality appear safe at the expense of our communities.

I hear from my Republican colleagues all the time that the Federal Government should be more transparent, but the literal and figurative smog that would be created by the FENCES Act will only make Americans sicker.

The FENCES Act goes an extra step to waive sanctions and fees for States, not just for international pollution but also pollution from mobile sources, exceptional events, and even from a different district within the same State.

In other words, the FENCES Act removes all incentives for States to work toward NAAQS attainment. This is a bad deal for the American people.

Every year, over 100,000 Americans die prematurely as a result of air pollution. Doctors and scientists widely consider foreign particulate matter to be one of the most toxic air pollutants, as it can cause asthma, COPD, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.

We can't just ignore air pollution and the very real health consequences that result from it to make permitting for industry easier. We shouldn't ignore the broader political landscape in which we are considering this bill, either.

Earlier this year, the EPA announced that it will no longer consider the benefits of protecting public health when developing new rules for fine particulate matter and ozone pollution. Instead, the EPA will only consider the compliance costs for industry.

This decision is entirely antithetical to the EPA's core mission to protect public health and the environment. The American people are asking us to lower healthcare costs, and our responsibility should be to them, not to the industry.

However, our Republican colleagues seem to only answer to their corporate polluter friends who are asking for regulatory rollbacks to save a few dollars. The DEFENSE Act is a gift to industry that would come at the expense of the American people.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DEFENSE Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.