H.Res. 1042

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, 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 thank the distinguished gentleman who is my friend from the great State of Colorado, Representative Neguse, for yielding time and for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, another reckless effort by the Republican majority to stop this House from doing something to stop the reckless Trump tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives, part of this Congress, is a separate and coequal branch of government. We don't work for Donald Trump. We don't work for J.D. Vance, and we don't work for Republican billionaire donors. We work for the American people.

The Constitution, Mr. Speaker, gives this House the explicit authority with respect to tariffs. Yet because apparently my Republican colleagues have been ordered by the current President not to allow an up-or-down vote on whether his tariffs are harmful to the American people, once again, we find ourselves discussing a rule to limit the ability of this Congress to act on behalf of the American people.

This is consistent with what we have seen from the Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of this Congress, which, unfortunately, continues to act like nothing more than a reckless rubberstamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda, an agenda that is not helping the American people. It is hurting the American people.

Yes, we have a cost-of-living crisis in this country, and I know the President doesn't want to talk about it. He thinks it is a Democratic hoax.

No, the affordability crisis in this country is not a hoax. It is very real. Working-class Americans, middle-class Americans, and everyday Americans are suffering because of the failed Trump Republican economy.

Donald Trump, his words, promised to lower the high cost of living on day one. More than 1 year later in the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, costs haven't gone down. Costs have gone up. Housing costs are out of control. Healthcare costs are out of control. Childcare costs are out of control. Electricity bills are out of control, and the price of groceries and everyday goods are completely out of control.

One of the reasons why the cost of living continues to crush the American people is because of the Trump tariffs which have imposed thousands of dollars in additional costs on everyday Americans, making life even more expensive than it had been when this Presidency began.

Why is it so complicated for Donald Trump to keep his promise to the American people to lower costs and to focus on making life more affordable?

Instead, he has gone the opposite direction, imposing tariffs on our allies in Canada and Mexico, in Europe and across the world, without any clear strategy, having an adverse effect on the pocketbook of everyday Americans.

This Congress is charged constitutionally with the ability to say yes or no as it relates to tariffs that have been imposed. In fact, the President should have sought our authorization.

Instead, he is using a fake emergency authority that hopefully the Supreme Court will make clear he does not have, and we certainly await that decision. However, we don't need to wait for that decision. We don't work for the Supreme Court either.

The House is the Article I branch of government, the institution that the Framers decided should be the part of government that is closest to the American people, that reflects the hopes, the dreams, the aspirations, the fears, the concerns, the anxieties, the passions, and the life experiences of the American people, who are suffering right now in this failed Trump Republican economy.

That is not just my simple observation. FOX News, the President's favorite news source, in a recent public opinion survey concluded that more than 70 percent of the American people believe, correctly, the economy is a disaster under this President.

One of the reasons why it is a disaster is because of the reckless Trump tariffs. The Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, won't even allow an up-or-down vote. That is what this rule is about--silencing debate and the will of the people's Representatives to do something meaningful to make life more affordable for the American people.

I asked some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who know that this so-called mandate that Republicans apparently believe they had in the aftermath of the November 2024 elections--parenthetically, by the way, what mandate do they really think they have in this House when they have the narrowest majority that any party has had since 1930 during the Great Depression?

In fact, we also know they wouldn't even be in the majority right now had they not stolen three seats from the people of North Carolina with mid-decade gerrymandering in 2024. Therefore, we don't want to hear anything about mandate.

The only mandate we have collectively is to make life more affordable for everyday Americans, to drive down the high cost of living, to stop burying your head in the sand, to stop being a reckless rubberstamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda, to stand up to him every now and then as part of a separate and coequal branch of government.

Stop the cult-like behavior, Mr. Speaker. It is hurting your very constituents.

We have an opportunity, if we vote down this rule, to actually take up for consideration the resolution put forward by Congressman Meeks that would wipe out the unnecessary tariff imposed on our ally to the north in Canada. It is a step that should have been taken a long time ago, but Republicans have been blocking this vote.

I just hope that a handful of Republicans will join every single House Democrat in opposing this rule so we can get to a debate on the actual substantive effort to stop the reckless, dangerous, and harmful Trump tariffs as part of our commitment as Democrats to do what is necessary to lower the high cost of living and to make sure that every single American in this country, when they work hard, when they play by the rules, they should be able to live an affordable life, a comfortable life, and live the good life.

It is not too much to ask for in the wealthiest country, America, in the history of the world. Work hard. Play by the rules. Live the good life. Good-paying job, good housing, good healthcare, good education for the children, and a good retirement--which means backing off extreme attacks on Social Security and Medicare--that is a Democratic commitment.

In order to help bring about that good life, Mr. Speaker, one of the most meaningful things that we can do as a body is to stop the harmful Trump tariffs. Vote ``no'' against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and in support of H.R. 2189, the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. This bill will put lifesaving, less lethal technology in the hands of more law enforcement and public safety officers.

When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted more than 50 years ago, it was not written with the intent to regulate less lethal projectile devices such as tasers. Unfortunately, if a taser or other device uses an explosive propellant to discharge a projectile, the ATF classifies it as a firearm. This makes it more difficult for law enforcement and public safety officers to obtain and use these devices.

For starters, many States prohibit public safety officers from using firearms. In at least 12 States, correctional officers are unable to carry firearms in the course of their official duties. Many State laws also prohibit or restrict the use of firearms in schools and hospitals, meaning security officers would be unable to purchase these devices.

For police departments, law enforcement officers could be unfairly subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for discharging a ``firearm'' than a less lethal device. This includes my own State of Wisconsin, which includes in its definition of deadly force the discharge of a firearm.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act is both necessary and important. H.R. 2189 makes a small, but important, change to the Gun Control Act's definition of a firearm to appropriately define a less lethal projectile device.

It does so by instituting a five-part test, ensuring only those devices that are truly less lethal will pass ATF scrutiny. It also exempts these devices from the firearm excise tax, the simple logic being that police departments and manufacturers should no longer be paying a firearm tax on a device that is no longer classified as a firearm. It was never intended to apply to them in the first place. It should not apply to them now.

By making these simple changes, we are equipping our law enforcement and public safety officers with the best tools to keep our communities safe and our first responders out of harm's way.

Innovation should be rewarded, not stifled, and this bill does just that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Congressman Correa, Congressman Schweikert, and Congressman Stanton, for their leadership on this issue over the last two Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neguse for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is Groundhog Day again in Washington, D.C. You know, this week is an opportunity to drive down electricity costs, create jobs at home by bolstering our exports of goods made in America. It is an opportunity to lower the cost of groceries and healthcare for families around our great country. But this Republican majority never misses an opportunity to do the opposite of addressing affordability for the American people.

After all of the majority's procedural shenanigans last year, my resolutions ending President Trump's harmful tariffs on Canada and Mexico are due for a vote this week. But the Republicans couldn't let that stand. They are trying to change the rules again and again and again and again to do what? They are trying to change the rules again to avoid voting on ending Trump's tariffs.

Just this week, new research from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation showed that the President's tariffs cost the average American well over $1,000. It will cost them even more now. That is what it cost them last year. It will be even more this year.

President Trump brags about the money generated from tariffs, but it is money ripped right out of the wallets of working families. Will this body listen to the affordability concerns of our constituents and retake our responsibility over Congress' Article I powers to tax and trade? No, they won't. Will they lower the cost of utilities and groceries or medical devices around the United States that Americans need? No, they won't.

What we are witnessing is one of the most astounding displays of cowardice in the modern history of Congress. It is truly a spectacle. In all my years, I have never seen a group of Members so deeply afraid of just doing their job.

The American people sent us here to address their affordability concerns. I had to say to one member of the administration just last week: Do not continue to be a flunky of the President. Don't be a flunky of the President. Don't block for the President if he is not doing the right thing. Work for the American people. Don't be flunkies for the President when you know he is wrong. Work for the American people. Let's vote on this. Let's have the bravery to vote on this.