H.Res. 354

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

Last night, the Committee on Rules met and produced a rule providing for consideration of five pieces of legislation.

H.J. Res. 60 and H.J. Res. 78 are both considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Additionally, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 are all considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule tolls the date counts regarding resolution of inquiry until September 30, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this, I will start by saying on the Committee on Rules we tend to get to know each other pretty well in significant late-night engagement in debate. The ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, has had an unfortunate loss that words cannot possibly convey as a dad what he and his wife are going through with the loss of his daughter, Molly.

I say from this side of the aisle, I know speaking for the entire Committee on Rules irrespective of party affiliation, how much Jim, his wife, and his son are in our prayers after losing their daughter and sister, Molly, to cancer.

As a cancer survivor, I have seen firsthand the horrors of the disease. I told my Committee on Rules colleagues last night in committee, in my time in treatment at MD Anderson, going through chemo seemed trivial to me compared to watching the parents at MD Anderson who were watching their children go through treatment.

Molly went to Heaven last week while visiting a friend in Italy, and I think I speak for everybody in this body when we offer our deepest condolences to Jim and to his entire family and to our colleagues who were so close with and knew Molly, who, by the way, from memory I believe worked for Jamie Raskin as an intern, and had her own engagements in public service.

When I heard of her passing, I did a little googling about her life, her love for sports and Boston sports, her love of her dad, and how proud she was of her dad.

While, just on occasion, Jim and I might have disagreed here on the House floor--it has been known to happen--we are all united in offering our condolences and prayers for Jim's family, and God bless Molly and his entire family.

Mr. Speaker, on the legislation that is before us, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, no doubt, about to launch into how we have had an ineffective first 100 days and Congress is not doing anything.

Let me put in perspective for the American people what we are focusing on.

We are focusing on undoing the damage of the last 4 years of the Biden administration. The President is doing that on a daily basis in the White House today, and then we in Congress are using the powers that we have before us in an obvious narrow majority and in a narrow majority in the Senate, where you have to get things through the Senate with 60 votes. We

are using the tools in front of us to try to limit and minimize the damage caused by the previous administration and, frankly, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today.

Notably, we are talking about in this situation what we have done so far. We have passed legislation to secure our elections through H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, to guarantee that only American citizens vote in American elections; to hold rogue judges accountable for issuing nationwide injunctions and trying to change the process.

Mr. Speaker, that is not partisan. Justice Elena Kagan talked about the need for injunction relief. The Democratic Solicitor General under the previous administration talked about the need for injunction reform. We offered legislation that would change and reform injunctions. We passed that before Easter so that a single judge won't be legislating and making national policy by granting temporary restraining orders and injunctions.

We made changes on border policy with the Laken Riley Act, which is extremely important; and legislation to combat the flow of fentanyl.

Importantly, what we have been trying to do is undo the damage on the border.

Mr. Speaker, keep in mind what has happened now under the first 100 days. In just 100 days, southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent year over year.

Mr. Speaker, consider that for a second. They decreased by 94 percent. What changed? Have we passed a massive law? Have we enacted the law that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last year was necessary, this bipartisan bill which, by the way, would have codified all the bad policies under the Biden administration?

No. The only thing that changed was a White House willing to enforce the law. That is literally it, and now there is a 94 percent reduction in apprehensions at the border.

Keep in mind that we are now at apprehension levels of somewhere around 100 to 200 a day, 3,000 to 6,000 a month. We had 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 apprehensions per day under the Biden administration.

The President has restored common sense by ending DEI in the military and working to keep men from competing in women's sports, affirming that there are two genders. These are common sense. I wouldn't think we would have to spend time on the floor of the House of Representatives doing those things or having the President do it by executive order, but here we are.

The President has unlocked America's energy potential, or at least taken a giant step to doing so, by reopening 625 million acres for drilling, withdrawing from the disastrous Paris climate agreement, and approving new LNG projects.

Mr. Speaker, here before us today, we have what we call CRAs, under the Congressional Review Act. The purpose of these is to undo burdensome Biden regulations. This is our ability and our prerogative to hold the Biden administration accountable, and that doesn't stop just because the Democrats lost an election and we have a Republican in the White House. We have a duty to undo some of that damage.

Under these bills, we would repeal California's advanced clean trucks waiver, which currently would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks. It would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks.

These bills would repeal the California advanced clean cars waiver allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; put an end to California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty, on-road engines; nullify a rule by the National Park Service that would infringe on the employment of a recreational area, contravening the agency's own mandate when it was created; and, finally, one that would end an Endangered Species Act designation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would threaten water resources and other conservation efforts.

Mr. Speaker, these things matter to the average American. My colleagues are going to say that this is small ball, and it doesn't matter.

Every one of these regulations add up to interference with the enjoyment of life by the American people, drive up the price of the goods and services for the average hardworking American family, make vehicles more expensive, make our lives more costly. Then people wonder why they are suffering from inflation and suffering from the inability to afford to live in the modern world.

This Congress is taking steps to undo that damage, working with the White House to restore the ability of the average American family to live and afford the basic necessities of life, including vehicles and the right to be able to choose the vehicle of their choice in an open market.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to say that we are infringing on California. Let's remember that California gets treated specially and uniquely and that that then has a domino effect through the rest of the country. That is unique to California based on past precedent involving Los Angeles smog and other things where that is causing a direct impact on other States across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I miss getting that admonition. It was a pretty regular occurrence in my various floor speeches.

With respect to the resolutions of inquiry, let me put out there that it is my strong preference, as I have said multiple times on the floor of the House, that we come up with a system that allows the body to work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive branch, no matter who is in power.

I introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act to try to restrict Presidential power under the Trump administration the first time and had trouble getting it moved during the Biden administration. I am not really even pointing fingers. I am acknowledging the politics. I had some Democratic colleagues and friends of mine that would say: I like that idea, but I don't know if right now is the time. Okay, but let's have the conversation.

Let's take ROIs, what we call resolutions of inquiry, a tool in which we can specifically go ask for specific information. We have engaged in that effort. I certainly have. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, ROIs, these resolutions of inquiry, were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. That is, of course, the ``you did it, so we will do it'' argument--not particularly satisfying if you want to have an open body.

I think the question would be: What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have? What should the rule be? If we want resolutions of inquiry to just be allowed in perpetuity, then maybe we need to come up with a way to try to guarantee that and do that, but that is not what happens. We have turned them off. Both sides have turned them off.

I would also add, for example, for the filibuster rule in the Senate, are we going to abide by the 60-vote threshold in the Senate as a Congress? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the filibuster rule for judges and succeeded, and now, we have a 51- vote threshold for judges.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the rule for legislation, and but for Kyrsten Sinema and but for Joe Manchin, they would have done so. Then, the Senate would have been operating by a 51-vote threshold for legislation.

Maybe that is good or bad, but maybe we should decide the rules we want to operate under and then apply them to both sides. Right now, we are operating under a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

I think that is something maybe we ought to put to a vote right here in this body, in the House, and say: Do we believe that the United States Senate should operate under a 60-vote threshold? Because if you go watch the Twitter feed of Kyrsten Sinema, she is pretty explicit about what she is watching and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate who now suddenly have newfound love and respect for the 60-vote threshold.

My point being, if we are going to change the body institutionally, then let's have a real conversation about changing the body institutionally.

Closed rules, I get it. In the majority, we are sitting here, and we have more closed rules. Do we want open rules? Then what will happen when the Democrats are in charge? Do you want resolutions of inquiry? What do we do to bind the hands of a future House on those points if not us agreeing to respect each other's ability to do that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple quick points on the resolutions of inquiry. I won't waste a whole lot more time on it.

The fact is, one, we have extended this through September 30 only at our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through reconciliation.

Two, my colleagues want to blame COVID. Committees were still in full operation. The fact of the matter is my colleagues didn't want to answer questions that we were asking about the border because they were unanswerable. The border was wide open. Americans were getting killed. Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, Americans like Laken Riley, Americans like Rachel Morin, and Americans like Kayla Hamilton. I can keep going down the list of dead Americans at the hands of the foolish, incompetent, and dangerous policies of the Biden administration that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to answer. That is the simple truth. When we wanted to get data about the border, they didn't want to answer it. It wasn't because of COVID.

Mr. Speaker, I note with respect to California that California's mandates effectively take away America's ability to buy new gas cars. As I mentioned earlier, California gets some special treatment. It is the only State allowed to seek waivers for its own vehicle policies due to a provision in the Clean Air Act crafted to allow California to address Los Angeles area smog, and so they have an outside impact on our ability to get affordable vehicles, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which would be unnecessarily impacted by where California wants to go and which we want to try to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I also note that California, as KTLA reported in a January 30 article, continues to lose more people than come into other States because of the tragic and unfortunate policies of the State of California.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will note that neither the GAO nor the Senate Parliamentarian get a vote. It is sort of a shocking news revelation I recognize, but they don't get a vote. We do. The Senate does. We can decide what we think ought to apply.

Number two, if my colleagues want to talk about the high price of vehicles, how about the extent to which the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

According to the latest data from Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric vehicles is $55,273, 3.7 percent higher than last year. For context, the median household income for the gentlewoman's district is $62,000.

The fact of the matter is, EVs are expensive. EVs are driving up the price of vehicles. The mandate is taking the power out of the hands of the American people to decide, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which allow individuals to have more efficient vehicles while being able to travel long distances, as I know the gentlewoman has constituents who need to do so in New Mexico as we need to do in west Texas and throughout the State of Texas.

Additionally, the trucks that are required under California's unrealistic mandates cost two to three times more than a new, safer, and more reliable diesel truck. The fact is, we are driving up the price of goods and services. We are making it more expensive for the American people to live. We are making it almost impossible for people to fix their vehicles and be able to afford their vehicles with every new thing we add to it to make it more complex in the name of safety or the environment.

The fact is, we can't be blind to those realities. That is exactly what is happening. That is why the American people are suffering from the inability to afford to live in this country.

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

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

I am always amazed when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that these EVs require power. Somehow they get charged from the magic fairy dust of the magic energy tree? I mean, what are we talking about here?

How do you power up an electric vehicle? It is done by burning coal, burning gas, or the nuclear plants that we are not actually permitting or building in the United States, while China builds two coal-fired plants virtually every week. We are building none. Well, good for us.

The vast majority of the world is producing power with coal and natural gas, and it is growing exponentially. Meanwhile, we are crushing our grid, the reliability of American power, making it more expensive for the average American and doing really nothing about worldwide CO2 production. That is the truth. China and India are pumping it out.

Meanwhile, my colleagues love to ignore the slave labor in China to produce the batteries that they drive around in their EVs while they pat themselves on the back and go to cocktail parties talking about how fantastic it is that they drive their EVs and how enlightened they are.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three articles: `` `Like slave and master': DRC miners toil for 30p an hour to fuel electric cars'' in the Guardian; ``EV makers' use of Chinese suppliers raises concerns about forced labor''; ``U.S. says Chinese lithium-ion batteries are made with child labour as trade war spills into EVs.''

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to parade around EV mandates like they are somehow going to magically create power out of thin air, ignoring the fact we are empowering China, ignoring the fact we are empowering Chinese child laborers while we destroy the cost of living for the average American family, take away choice, take away the ability of an American citizen to be able to go out into the market and buy a hybrid vehicle or another vehicle that they can use to travel long distances, do their job, whether they are a plumber, an electrician, or carrying goods and services in a truck, and then they wonder why the cost of goods and services go up. Then they want to blame tariffs when we are 90 days in, and we had massive and rampant inflation under the Biden administration as a direct consequence of the regulatory policies and the failed policies of the previous administration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that with respect to wind energy, yes, Texas is one of the leaders in wind energy. I worked for Governor Perry when the Governor was embracing wind power, and the fact of the matter is, as it has become a larger percentage of the grid, the reliability of Texas' grid has suffered, and now the consequences of having embraced wind as a significant portion of the grid are now coming to roost.

We are now having to deal with what happens when these need to be shelved. Where do they go? They fill landfills. How much oil and gas goes into the production of said windmills? How do you get the power from the wind farms in west Texas to the various facilities where we are making power? How reliable is it during ice storms or during the heat of the summer? When you have a cloudy, windless day, how are you getting power? Who is making the parts for the solar panels? What happens to the solar panels in the environment when you are finished with the solar farm?

All of these questions get brushed aside in a quest to say that we can have magical ``green, clean energy,'' when we have clean-burning natural gas in Texas and throughout this country that is producing a significant amount of economic benefit and power for our country and has done more to drive down CO2 production and for clean air than virtually any other innovation we have had over the last century.

Yet, we are impeding the ability to have more reliable power by virtue of mandates. That is the whole point of the problem with the Inflation Reduction Act. That is the whole point of the problem with the rules and the rulemaking done by the Biden administration that we are trying to reverse under these CRAs, so that we can make things more affordable for the American people. That is it. We are trying to help the average Texan, the average New Mexican, the average American be able to afford to live, trying to be able to figure out how to get power, get a vehicle that they can afford to be able to carry out their job. That is it.

On the issue of healthcare, the issue was raised, as is often the case by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to try to scare the American people that somehow raising questions about the inefficiency, the ineffectiveness, the waste, the fraud of a government healthcare solution, that somehow that is taking away benefits.

When you have a trillion dollars of improper payments, when you have the State of California openly and publicly stating that they are gaming the Medicaid system and the provider tax and the Federal match rate to provide funds to illegal aliens and for their general budget to game the system at what best can be called money laundering, as was editorialized in The Wall Street Journal last week. When that is what is happening, when you have people on Medicaid who are getting a higher subsidy than people on Medicare, who have paid into it their entire lives, into the tax on Medicare; when you have people who are able- bodied who are getting a higher subsidy than the vulnerable population for whom Medicaid was originally created, then someone explain to me why we don't have a duty to fix that.

That is what we are putting forward, to try to deliver healthcare that would actually have a doctor and a patient relationship rather than a corporate overlord or government bureaucrat telling you what your healthcare is. That is the system that has been created. That is the system that we are living with now under expanded ObamaCare. That is what that is, expanded ObamaCare. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about the expansion of that population into the able-bodied who could be and should be working at a higher rate of return by the Federal Government than is going to the vulnerable population, while California games the system to give money to illegal aliens. That is expressly and openly being acknowledged by California leadership.

They don't want to have those conversations. They don't want to talk about how you manage that problem, how you get more people to be able to have affordable care instead of what they currently have, which is a broken system that insurance companies run, forcing individuals onto an exchange so they can get like my constituent who passed away last year from cancer, who wanted to go to M.D. Anderson and could not go because she was on an

ObamaCare plan and couldn't go to the best cancer hospital in the world because she was covered under ObamaCare.

The failure of our healthcare system cannot be overstated. Both parties need to step to the table to get government out of the way and to allow doctors and patients to be able to go get healthcare from a provider of their choice--not some insurance bureaucrat or government bureaucrat--in order to deliver outcomes that the American people want us to deliver.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, number one, Congress has an important role to play in repealing the Biden-Harris administration's EV mandates and other rules that are damaging the lives of the American people.

When the administration transmits an action to the House and the Senate for review under the CRA, then it is Members of Congress, not the GAO and not the Parliamentarian, who decide whether and how we proceed under the CRA.

The fact here is California mandates, which is what we are dealing with here in several of these Congressional Review Act actions, effectively take away Americans' ability to buy new gas cars, a hybrid vehicle, or the vehicle of their choice. It raises their vehicle and transportation costs.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the former Speaker of the House, came down and described that somehow we are not factoring in the price of clean air. With the vehicles that we are producing today, the fact is we have the cleanest air we have ever had.

There is no problem with having EVs. It is the mandates that are the problem. It is mandating the American people must convert that is the problem. In fact, worldwide, the extent to which coal-fired plants in China, coal-fired plants in India, and other countries around the world are producing CO2 and other particulate matter that is bad for the air is rising.

Why would we undermine our own economic well-being to pursue a negligible impact on the overall global emissions, while driving up the price of goods and services for the average American family? They have to live for today. They have to pay their bills today.

All the subsidies in the world aren't making those things economically viable for them. Whether you are talking about wind farms or EVs without the mandates, what is clear is the American people aren't buying these things because they are still not able to function and carry out their livelihoods effectively under the mandates.

Higher costs and fewer choices for consumers hit low-income and disadvantaged communities the hardest. There is a reason why, when I drive around Austin, Texas, I see it is the rich folk driving around in their Teslas. It is the rich folk who are getting their EV tax credits. I see it. They are not in east Austin. They are out in the rich parts of Austin.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that is an accident? Do you think the hardworking plumber I represent in San Marcos, Texas, in New Braunfels, Texas, or any other part of Texas is going to go out and get a battery- powered truck to drive across 10 counties to carry out his job or his livelihood? As I said before, the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

Mandates disrupt the free market. We have talked about the impact these mandates can have on the reliability of our power grid.

Is the Nation's grid even up to the mandates we talk about? No, it is not because then there will be more mandates on what the grid has to look like. Suddenly, we are Spain. Suddenly, we are wondering why the grids are failing.

Importantly, California's move empowers China, which dominates the EV market and uses slave labor and coal-powered plants to produce EV batteries. That is just the truth.

Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of the world's electric vehicle batteries are manufactured in China. China owns 80 percent of the industrial cobalt mines in the Congo and controls 15 of 19 of the primary cobalt mines in the Congo. These mines are operated by trafficked child slaves. Since when do we not care about that?

The idea that California can do this unilaterally is preposterous. They are the only State allowed to seek waivers under a unique policy. They should not be able to determine policy for the State of Texas or any other place.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

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

An Amendmentto H. Res. 354 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation

measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program, and for other purposes. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on

any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 2753.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 707 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 Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 707 provides for consideration of seven measures. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4922, H.R. 5140, H.R. 5143, and H.R. 5125 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees.

The rule provides each bill with one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3015, H.R. 3062, and H.R. 1047 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate each equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees.

The rule provides each bill with one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 3633, the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 1919 as passed by the House as a new matter at the end of H.R. 3633.

Further, the rule tolls the day counts regarding resolutions of inquiry until March 31, 2026.

Finally, the rule tolls the day counts until March 31, 2026, regarding joint resolutions terminating the national emergencies declared by the President on February 1, 2025; April 2, 2025; and July 30, 2025.

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 reverse the disastrous energy and crime policies left behind by the previous administration and restore accountability where needed the most.

For far too long, the American people have been forced to live under a regulatory agenda that drove up costs, weakened our grid, and made our communities less safe. These measures begin to roll back that damage and put us on a stronger and safer trajectory.

To restore accountability in our energy policies, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3015, the National Coal Council Reestablishment Act. This legislation permanently restores the National Coal Council, an advisory body for nearly four decades, providing expert recommendations on matters affecting the American coal sector.

Established in 1984, the council delivered 40 reports to the Secretary of Energy on coal markets, research and development into clean coal technologies, and regulatory barriers that affect the coal industry.

However, in 2021, at the behest of leftwing organizations, the Biden administration disregarded this history and disbanded the council, replacing it with an advisory body charged with fulfilling the left's Green New Deal agenda. Make no mistake. This was not about policy, it was about shutting coal out of the conversation, an essential piece of our Nation's energy matrix.

The United States is home to the world's largest coal reserves, with approximately 440 years' worth of supply at current production levels. Today, our fleet of over 400 coal-fired power plants provide 16 percent of America's electricity, and in five States, coal provides more than one-half. In 17 States it provides more than 20 percent. Together, the coal industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, lifts up small communities across the country, and provides affordable and reliable baseload power that helps keep prices stable.

Premature retirements of coal plants are being driven by Federal and State policies that intentionally attack their financial viability, yet the demand for electricity is only going up.

Since 2022, the retirement of 29,000 megawatts of coal capacity has been delayed because of rising demand and insufficient replacement resources. To put it bluntly, removing coal from the grid at this moment in time would lead to higher costs and greater instability for families and businesses. This is a reality that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge.

In New York we are already seeing what these anti-energy radical policies have done: shutting down production of reliable baseload power in favor of pursuing unrealistic and dangerous green agenda items.

Now, despite widespread public opposition, Governor Kathy Hochul and Albany Democrats are moving forward with a ban on natural gas and propane hookups in new construction starting in 2026. That means families in western New York, where winters are long, snow is great, and it is cold and oftentimes dangerous in these terrible winter storms, they will be denied the ability to choose the energy source that best keeps them safe and warm in their homes. Taking affordable and reliable options off the table is not sound policy.

It is assaults like this on consumer choice and on the freedom to use reliable, affordable energy like coal and natural gas that leave people more vulnerable when the power goes out. That is why it matters who is at the table. When it comes to energy policy, this measure makes the National Coal Council permanent, so future administrations can't simply shut it down for political reasons.

H.R. 3015 also reinforces President Trump's April 8, 2025, executive order to reinvigorate America's clean coal industry recognizing that coal must remain part of our future if we want to ensure future prosperity, meet rising electricity demands, and lower costs for families.

By reestablishing the National Coal Council, Congress will ensure that reliable, affordable baseload power remains a cornerstone of our energy policy while supporting family-sustaining jobs and fueling next- generation industries like artificial intelligence.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3062, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act. This measure creates a transparent and permanent framework for permitting pipelines and other cross-border energy projects.

For years, developers have been subject to political gamesmanship, destroyed investments, and stranded jobs. The cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline was not based on science; it was simply based on politics. The Biden administration sided with radical activists over American workers in energy security for our country.

We have seen the same story play out in my own State of New York. The Northern Access pipeline was a major natural gas infrastructure project that promised thousands of good-paying jobs, more affordable energy for families across the northeastern United States, and new tax revenue for rural communities like mine in the southern tier.

However, instead of moving forward, that project was tied up with endless red tape and obstructed by regulators. Western New York and the southern tier lost jobs and investment in energy security that would have come from it. A project that should have supported a large construction workforce and strengthened our region was derailed again because of politics.

This is exactly why permitting reform is needed and is needed now. Without certainty, projects like this will continue to slip away, taking good jobs and economic growth with them.

Energy developers, workers, and communities all deserve better. Yet when it comes to the permitting reforms that would actually allow critical energy projects to move forward, Democrats have consistently acquiesced to the demands of radical environmental groups instead of the needs

of American workers and their families.

The result is higher costs and fewer options for American families. This legislation cuts through that red tape, gives developers certainty, and ensures critical projects can move forward.

In addition, the rule includes H.R. 1047, the Guaranteeing Reliability Through the Interconnection of Dispatchable Power Act.

Year after year, projects that would keep the lights on and lower bills are stuck in the interconnection queues and regulatory wait lists. Sometimes as long as 7 years they are stuck there. That is simply unacceptable. Families do not care about bureaucratic excuses. They care about whether their homes are heated in the winter and cooled in the summer. This legislation cuts through that backlog. It empowers grid operators to prioritize projects that actually enhance reliability.

Let us be clear about how we got here. Democrats have spent years forcing premature retirements of coal, nuclear, and natural gas through excessive regulation, while shoveling subsidies to wind and solar. The result is interconnection queues flooded with projects that only have a 5 percent completion rate.

Meanwhile, Democrat policies have left ratepayers footing the bill for two grids. One grid props up wind and solar with massive transmission costs. The other is the backup power we all rely on when the Sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

This measure puts reliability first. It follows the lead of major grid operators who know the danger of relying too heavily on intermittent sources, and it makes sure that the grid is strong enough not only to keep the lights on at home but also to power next- generation industries like AI and manufacturing so America, not China, leads the future.

Mr. Speaker, energy security is, simply put, national security. The rule before us takes important steps to keep power reliable and affordable and American made.

But security is not just about the strength of our grid. It is also about the safety of our communities. Nowhere is that failure of safety more visible than right here in our Nation's capital.

While Washington should be a place that is showcased as what is the very best of America, it has instead become a city struggling with violent crime, juvenile offenses, and weakened law enforcement. The next measures in this rule take direct aim at those failures and restore accountability where the D.C. council has refused to act.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4922, the D.C. Crimes Act of 2025. This legislation reasserts congressional oversight over the District by prohibiting the D.C. council from further pursuing its progressive, soft-on-crime sentencing guidelines.

The council has failed to keep residents and visitors from our country and from around the world safe. Even as violent crime has soared, police staffing has dropped to a 50-year low. This measure takes direct aim at the council's reckless decisions. It lowers the definition of a youth offender from under 25 to under 18 where it belongs so that adults are simply treated as adults.

It ends judicial discretion that allows juvenile, violent offenders to escape mandatory minimums, and it prohibits the council from weakening mandatory minimums on sentencing guidelines any further.

Make no mistake, carjackings and robberies by juveniles are out of control. More than 500 minors were arrested for robbery in 2023, and more carjackings were committed by juveniles. Every American should be able to visit their Nation's capital without fear of being the next victim.

We know all too well what happens when local leaders choose leniency over accountability. In my home State of New York, cashless bail has unleashed a wave of tragic and entirely preventable outcomes. Governor Hochul and Democrats have doubled down on procriminal policies that put violent offenders back on our streets, leaving families and communities to suffer the consequences. The American people deserve better. New Yorkers deserve better. People in Washington, D.C., deserve better, and President Trump has already stepped in to end cashless bail here in Washington. It is long past time for New York to follow that lead.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5140, the District of Columbia juvenile sentencing reform act. Since the pandemic, juvenile crime has surged. More than 2,000 juveniles were arrested in both 2023 and 2024. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, over half of robbery arrests last year were juveniles. This year, juveniles account for more than half of carjacking arrests. This legislation responds to that reality.

Current law allows juveniles 16 and older to be tried as adults for violent crimes. This measure lowers that age to 14. These are not youthful mistakes. They are violent, life-altering crimes.

Consider the tragic example of Mohammad Anwar, a hardworking immigrant killed in 2021 by two teenage girls during a carjacking. Both will be back on the streets by the age of 21.

In July of 2023, another Lyft driver, who previously served as an interpreter for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, was fatally shot while driving. The teen responsible was just 14 years old. They were sentenced to only 3 years of secure detention. Old enough to commit horrific and senseless murder, yet he will be back on the streets in just 3 years.

Let me be clear. This legislation applies only to violent crimes: murder, first degree sexual abuse, burglary in the first degree, and robbery while armed. These are serious offenses that endanger residents and visitors to our Nation's capital every day. They demand serious consequences to truly restore law and order.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 5143, the District of Columbia Policing Protection Act. In 2023, the council imposed a set of restrictions that require officers to evaluate a checklist of 14 factors to decide whether to pursue a fleeing suspect. One of those factors even requires an officer to determine whether anyone in the suspect's car had a chance to surrender a weapon. That is absurd. Officers rarely have time or information to work through such a checklist when a suspect takes off.

This legislation repeals those restrictions. It restores discretion to trained officers. It allows pursuit when an officer or supervisor determines it is necessary, the most effective means of apprehension, and does not present an unreasonable risk to bystanders. Officers must be able to act quickly to protect lives, and this measure restores that authority.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5125, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act. The Judicial Nomination Commission currently limits President Trump's choices for D.C. judges to a very narrow list of names. That process is slow, it is politicized, and it is very likely unconstitutional under the appointments clause. The result has been persistent vacancies, clogged courts, and criminals slipping through the cracks.

This legislation abolishes the commission and restores normal constitutional processes. The President nominates; the Senate confirms. That is how it works everywhere else in America, and that is how it should work right here in D.C. A duly elected President should not be bound by a bureaucratic commission when choosing judges. By ending this broken system, we can fill vacancies faster, strengthen courts, and ensure justice is delivered without delay.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats' soft-on-crime policies have failed in D.C. just as they have failed in States like New York. These bills hold the line, restore accountability, and put public safety ahead of politics.

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

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

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to talk about affordability. They love to play class warfare, but if Democrats were serious about lowering costs for working families, then they wouldn't have spent the last 4 years driving energy prices higher with more regulations, higher taxes, and subsidies that pick winners and losers.

Families have felt the pain every time they fill up their gas tank, pay their rising utility bills, or try to keep their lights on in their small businesses.

Republicans, working with President Trump, are focused on real solutions: Restoring energy policy that unleashes production here at home secures our grid, delivers reliable, affordable power that families and businesses can count on, and creates jobs in the process. That is exactly what this rule is about.

The three energy bills before us are straightforward. They support family-sustaining energy jobs. They streamline approvals for cross- border infrastructure and ensure reliable and dispatchable generation for the grid. Together, they mean lower bills for families, stronger supply chains, and a more competitive America.

When Democrats talk about affordability, they don't have a leg to stand on in this fight because it is their assault on the American energy industry that led to so much of the inflation that this country suffered under for the last 5 years.

The answer is right here in the rule, and we need to support this legislation.

I strongly support the legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the gentleman's comments on tariffs.

Republicans are doing what Democrats promised the American people for generations that they would do but utterly failed at: ensuring fair trade, protecting American workers, and bringing countries to the negotiating table in the process. For years, Democrats sold a bill of goods to working-class Americans while they turned a blind eye as their factories closed and their jobs were shipped overseas.

Today, Democrats claim to be the party of working families, and we know that is not the case. Yet, it is President Trump, over the Democrats' loud objections, who is fighting for fair trade deals for our working families, like the working families in New York's 23rd Congressional District.

Access to the American economy is a privilege, not a right. President Trump is using tariffs as leverage to reduce reciprocal barriers, safeguard our national security, and level the global playing field for American producers and manufacturers, and it is working.

Treasury has already collected more than $29 billion in tariff revenue this year, while countries like India, China, and South Korea are at the table negotiating new deals as we speak.

This is the same decisive leadership that secured stronger trade agreements with the EU, Japan, the U.K., and partners across Asia. These aren't trade wars. They are trade wins that deliver more jobs, higher wages, and greater opportunities for American families and American products around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the same focus on protecting working families is exactly what we are doing with the bills before us today. This rule advances commonsense legislation to strengthen our grid, unleash American energy, and restore coal's role in the mix.

Also, let's not underplay what it means to protect the people of Washington, D.C., which we do have a Federal oversight responsibility for. Having a crime-ridden Nation's Capital is unacceptable by any metric.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's set the record straight. There is a lot to unpack there and a lot of talk about playing games, but what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to admit is how during the COVID-19 pandemic they had intentionally passed premium tax credits with a sunset allowing them to expire and, in the process, playing politics with the healthcare of millions of Americans.

If Democrats truly supported these credits, as they claim they now do, being made permanent, they would have made them permanent when they controlled both Chambers of Congress and the White House. It would have been suggested by President Biden when he was in the White House that it should have been a priority of the Congress. They refused to do so. They never brought that up.

Mr. Speaker, this is a pattern with Democrats. They would rather use working families for their political means and ends than genuinely work to make their lives better. The American people see that for what it is. Mr. Speaker, you are hearing: The sky is falling. Everyone is going to lose their healthcare if this is not attached to a CR at this moment.

Yes, we do have the majority. I am confident we will pass the CR in the House. However, Mr. Speaker, you know darn well that in the Senate, Leader Schumer will hold the majority hostage using the filibuster to force us into a shutdown, just like they threatened to do in March. I mean, that is the tactic that is being played. All these expectations are being set by the other side, knowing that they have a trap door, and they intend to try to leverage the American people to get more of their political will accomplished.

Republicans already voted to deliver lower premiums for patients by passing H.R. 1, which targeted waste, fraud, and abuse across the ACA marketplace. Democrats unanimously opposed this bill, showing once again they are not serious about solving affordability problems for everyday Americans, just like they are not serious about trying to keep the government open. If they were, they would have supported these commonsense policies. Instead, they would rather play politics.

Mr. Speaker, what we are actually debating today are commonsense measures in this rule to strengthen American energy policy, to keep violent crime off our streets here in our Capital City. These bills are about lowering costs for working families, keeping our communities safe and restoring accountability. We are getting the job done with or without their support.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle want to pretend Republicans are manufacturing a crime crisis in our Nation's Capital, but the facts tell a completely different story. Under President Biden and Democratic leadership, Washington, D.C., became one of the most dangerous cities in America.

In 2023, D.C. had the fourth highest homicide rate in the Nation, trailing only New Orleans, St. Louis, and Detroit. If D.C. were a State, it would have had the highest homicide rate in America. That number could be even higher because, as we know, D.C. officials may have manipulated the crime

data to hide the true extent of the problem.

Democrats would rather fudge the numbers to justify their radical policy experiments in places like D.C. than actually protect communities from violent crime. The same thing is happening in my home State of New York. They would rather quibble over process arguments and gaslighting using false statistics than acknowledge how many lives have been saved since President Trump took action to enforce law and order in the streets of Washington.

This is how unserious and radical today's Democratic Party has become. Contrast this with what has happened since President Trump stepped in. In the 20 days following the Federal surge, carjackings dropped 87 percent compared to the same period last year. Across the board, violent crime fell 39 percent, burglaries dropped 45 percent, and carjackings fell 75. More than 2,700 arrests were made and 323 firearms were recovered. These aren't talking points. They are results. They are real safety improvements felt by families here in the District of Columbia.

While Democrats scramble to defend their failed policies and liberal experiments in America's major cities, and they downplay the true cost in lives that come from policies that have long been supported in these cities, Republicans are restoring accountability, enforcing the law, and delivering real results to make our communities safer. That is exactly what this rule is about.

The legislation before us strengthens accountability here in Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital. It should be the gem of the country, and it will be again. If Democrats are truly serious about protecting families, they should support this rule and all of the underlying legislation, which is common sense to support law and order and protect the lives of the residents and the visitors to this great city.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the authors of inflation, the creators of inflation on the other side of this Chamber, the people who hypercharged an economy and drove down the value of our dollar, are now going to lecture us on why groceries cost so much. Where the hell have they been for the last 4 years? Where were they when Americans were struggling with the cost of their groceries because gas was up near $4 a gallon?

Their policies determined that when they ran all facets of the government. Now, they have this revisionist history, and they want to talk about a cup of coffee.

The tariff negotiations that President Trump has used have created new deals and new markets for our products around the globe. It is making a more competitive America, and we are not going to be taken advantage of by other countries anymore.

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

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

Again, more and more class warfare, Mr. Speaker. We hear the term ``millionaires and billionaires'' thrown around. Yet, every single one of them voted against all the tax benefits that would have helped the middle class and will continue to help the middle class.

The minority voted against no tax on tips, against no tax on overtime,

against doubling the child tax credit, and against doubling the standard deduction, all things that put serious money back into the pockets of my constituents.

Now, to my colleague, $1,800, $2,000, $2,500 might not seem like a lot to him, but it might be two mortgage payments to my constituents. Yet, every single one of them voted no.

I will not be lectured, and none of us should be lectured by people who stood in the way of getting that tax code made permanent.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Americans have been forced to endure higher costs, weaker energy security, and rising crime because of policies pushed by the left.

The American people rejected that approach last November, and they elected a President and a Congress committed to restoring accountability, protecting families, and ensuring our future is built on reliable and affordable American energy.

The measures in this rule fulfill that promise. They strengthen our grid, cut through bureaucratic red tape, and make sure America, not China, leads in powering the next generation.

They also hold the line on public safety by rolling back soft-on- crime policies here in our Nation's Capital in Washington, D.C., and they restore the accountability that local leaders have refused to enforce.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a whole lot of words from the gentleman from New York, but the bills before us today are yet another example of how backward Republican priorities are and how they are hurting this country, hurting the economic well-being of the people I represent, and hurting the economic

well-being of working people all over this country.

People are stressed about their budgets. They are worried about prices going up. They are scared they might lose their jobs. People are struggling to pay the bills and make ends meet, worried about saving for college for their kids and how they are going to deal with the exploding costs of healthcare.

Instead of addressing any of that, we are dealing with this. When we are not dealing with this, Republicans are obsessed with fighting culture wars. That is what they want 24/7: culture wars, culture wars, culture wars. Some of them are now proposing a new committee to investigate their political opponents, a new House un-American activities committee that would make Joe McCarthy blush. That is all this place is to Republicans: a venue for culture wars, a venue for legislation to further divide people and divide this country. Meanwhile, they do nothing, absolutely nothing for everyday people, nothing at all.

Actually, it is worse than nothing. They are actively trying to screw over regular people. Look no further than yesterday. Democrats tried to force a vote on Trump's tariffs, and nearly every Republican blocked it. Every one of them is now on record as supporting Trump's disastrous tariffs. They are not just ignoring the economy. They are making it worse.

For the other side, this is all about genuflecting to Donald Trump. It is all about power for the sake of power. It is not about the American people. It has never been about the American people for Republicans. It is about power, and they use that power to help the rich, the well-connected, and the well-off.

Four of these bills that we are going to be dealing with are about local issues in Washington, D.C., something none of my constituents have ever asked me about. For the record, 0.2 percent of the U.S. population lives in Washington, D.C., and Republicans want to get into the weeds about their local policing policies.

Do you know what my constituents ask me about? They don't ask me about local issues that affect Washington, D.C. They ask me about why their healthcare insurance premiums are going up. They ask me about prices going up because of Donald Trump's tariffs. They tell me they need more money in their pockets to make ends meet.

Yet, week after week, Republicans do nothing about healthcare and nothing about inflation. It is constant culture wars. It is constant giveaways to the rich and powerful. It is constant distractions.

One of the Republican bills that we are considering today reestablishes a coal council--not even establishes, reestablishes. Wow, that is really important, a coal council. Who the hell asked for that? A coal lobbyist?

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy already reestablished this stupid council months ago. It is apparently so important that President Trump hasn't even bothered to appoint anyone to it yet. If you look up their website, he still hasn't appointed anybody to the council. Go to the website.

This is stupid. We are wasting time by doing this. Energy prices are going up in this country, and this is the majority's response: reestablishing a coal council. You can't make this stuff up. This is laughable.

The other bills that Republicans are bringing forward today are giveaways to polluters who dump toxic chemicals into our air and water. Why? Follow the money. Did the CEO of ExxonMobil call Donald Trump and ask for a favor?

Mr. Speaker, all of these bills are a disgrace. The people we represent want us to address the real issues that we face every day. They want us to talk about the cost of living, healthcare, and fixing what is broken with this country's economic system.

Meanwhile, as we are gathering here to do this stuff, the clock is ticking toward a shutdown. Republicans control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They should be able to fund the government, but they won't. They won't.

Let me be clear: Democrats are not going to stand by and do nothing while my Republican colleagues try to kick millions of people off their healthcare.

I hear that the Speaker of the House is saying that it is no big deal, that we will just kick the can down the road, deal with it sometime, maybe in December, and talk about it then.

Let me be clear. I will speak in ``See Spot Run'' language so that my Republican colleagues can understand. Mr. Speaker, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says that 1.5 million people--that is a lot of people--will lose their healthcare if we wait. People's premiums--that is, their monthly payments--will go way, way up because the insurance companies are making important decisions right now about how much to charge. We do not have time to wait.

Mr. Speaker, now that that is clear, Republicans have three choices: First, they can work with us in a bipartisan way to make sure it doesn't happen. Second, they could do what Trump said and pass the CR alone since they control government. Third, they can choose to shut the government down.

Those are the three options. Democrats are for keeping the government open, but we are not for passing legislation that tells millions of people who we represent, including sick people: Good luck. You are on your own. Best wishes.

We are not for that. If there is a shutdown, I say that Republicans own this. It is their shutdown. If Republicans would rather shut down the government than protect people's healthcare, then we do not share the same values.

I want to keep people on healthcare, not kick them off. I go home and ask people what they care about. I go to coffee shops and county fairs. I hold townhalls--something Republicans should try to do, by the way. Do you know what I hear from my constituents? They are sick and tired of those at the top getting ahead while they struggle to pay their bills.

They are sick and tired of Republicans in Congress passing bills to help the rich while everyone else has to breathe in dirty air and drink dirty water.

They are sick and tired of this culture war garbage and this weird obsession that Republicans have with micromanaging Washington, D.C. They want Republicans to leave Washington, D.C., the hell alone and focus on their own damned communities.

They are sick and tired of Republicans trying to kick people off of their healthcare to pay for taxes for multimillionaires and billionaires.

These are rotten bills. To top it all off, we have seven more completely closed rules with no amendments allowed. Take it or leave it from this Republican majority. I think we ought to leave it. These are terrible bills that are going to hurt the people we represent.

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are protecting American families, my foot. You just passed this big, ugly bill that throws millions of people off of healthcare, that gives tax breaks to multimillionaires and billionaires, and then you accuse us of playing class warfare because we are trying to stick up for the middle class in this country, for working families. You can't call it class warfare when you are giving tax breaks to multimillionaires and billionaires while cutting people's healthcare benefits.

Let me just say for the record that in the gentleman's district, New York District 23, as of 2024, 6,000 people in his district received tax credits to help lower their monthly premium payments to make quality comprehensive health insurance coverage more affordable, and these tax credits are due to expire. These people are going to lose their healthcare or they are going to see their premiums go through the roof.

For a 60-year-old couple earning $82,800 a year in the gentleman's district, annual premiums would increase by $7,349. That is a 110 percent increase.

For a family of four earning $129,800 a year, ages 45 and up, the annual premium would increase by $17,741. That is a 172 percent increase.

For a family of four earning $64,000 a year, the annual premiums would increase by $2,571. That is a 369 percent increase.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I guess in his district his constituents don't care about that. According to him, they care more about micromanaging D.C.

In my district and in other districts that I know of in this country, people are worried about their healthcare costs, and we ought to do something about it. We shouldn't kick the can down the road so more and more people end up feeling the pain.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to strike sections 9, 10, and 11, which together block privileged consideration of measures ending the administration's global tariffs and tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and Brazil until March 31, 2026.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump made a campaign promise that he would lower prices ``on day one,'' yet Trump's disastrous trade war continues to increase the prices Americans are paying for food, for gas, and for other everyday goods.

According to independent estimates, Trump's current tariff regime is resulting in a $2,300 tax increase in 2025 alone for the average American household. Fruits, vegetables, beef, and coffee are just some of the products experiencing the highest price increases. Go to a supermarket for heaven's sake in your district and you will know what I am talking about.

This is not what the American people voted for. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that Trump's tariffs that he imposed under the guise of bogus emergencies are unlawful and that Congress, not the President, must make the calls when it comes to imposing new tariffs.

As we await the Supreme Court's decision, Congress should be voting on these tariffs and whether they should remain in place, but in the Republican rule, they are, again, blocking the Congress from taking a vote on whether we should keep or remove these emergency tariffs.

The President imposed huge tariffs on Canada and Mexico in February, global tariffs in April, and most recently, a 50 percent tariff on Brazil because he didn't like that his friend, Brazil's disgraced former President, was just tried and convicted of trying to overthrow a democratic election to stay in power.

Mr. Speaker, does that remind you of anyone, by the way?

The American people paid $30 billion in new tariff taxes in August alone, and Republicans are continuing to hide their heads in the sand.

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

Mr. Speaker, for God's sake, we ought to do our work. We ought to live up to our constitutional responsibility and debate and vote on these things. I am sorry that the President has instructed you to do nothing, but we ought to do something.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am confused by what the gentleman said. I don't know whether he supports the ACA tax credits or not. If he doesn't, then 6,000 of his constituents will be adversely impacted. If he does, then we should just fix it right now. By the way, Republicans all opposed the ACA when it came up, so I don't want to hear that garbage.

Don't blame the Senate. Donald Trump just said to Republicans over in the Senate: Do it on your own. I think what he is referring to was just last week Republicans nuked the filibuster when it comes to nominations. Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. Basically what they are telling us is that they don't give a damn about working families in this country, and that is what is at stake here.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett.)

Mr. Speaker, you have got to love these Republicans. They spend more time talking about micromanaging 0.2 percent of the American population in D.C. and more worried about that than they are worried about the fact that over 99 percent of the American people are about to see their premiums go up. Millions of people are going to lose their healthcare. We just have a different set of priorities. We have a different set of priorities.

By the way, when we talk about national security, healthcare is part of it. If you don't have healthcare, you don't have security.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned just a few moments ago, Republicans are blocking a vote on Trump's tariffs in this rule. I think it is pretty obvious why. The consequences of his economic policy are being felt in communities across this country, and Republicans know they can't defend it. That is why they are not doing townhalls.

Moms and dads are coming home with pink slips because their employers don't know if they can keep the doors open. Small businesses are shuttering. Farmers are struggling under higher input costs and shrinking markets.

Food, gas, electricity, basic goods and services--the prices are all up. They are likely to climb even higher as Trump's tariffs ripple through the supply chain. It is clear that the Trump economy is not working for average Americans.

President Trump and Republicans promised to reduce inflation. Instead, last month, we saw the largest monthly increase in inflation since January.

They promised to reduce grocery prices. Instead, last month, grocery prices spiked at the fastest pace in 3 years, driven in part by tariff- fueled costs.

They promised to cut electricity prices in half. Instead, August electricity prices were 6 percent higher than they were a year ago, and Americans are having to navigate a weakening job market and rising costs.

Fruits and vegetables are up nearly 2 percent. Dairy products are up 1.3 percent. Cereal and bread are up 1.1 percent. Meat, poultry, fish, and eggs are all up a whopping 5.6 percent. Give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, let's be frank. The only winners in Trump's economy are millionaires and billionaires. He packed his Cabinet with the rich and well-connected. Republicans' reconciliation bill hands out nearly $100,000 in tax cuts for those making over a million dollars a year in 2027 alone.

Just last week, the Trump administration started rolling back efforts to crack down on offshore tax shelters that billionaires and giant corporations use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Who does that?

Mr. Speaker, Trump promised an economy for the American people, but time and time again, his tariffs and policies have only delivered for the ultrarich, while families, farmers, and small businesses pay the price. We ought to be voting on this stuff.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman talking about the reconciliation bill that the Republicans brought to the floor that resulted in trillions and trillions of dollars and more debt, all to give multimillionaires and multibillionaires a tax cut? I mean, I am sorry. If there is class warfare going on here, I know which side my Republican friends are on.

Mr. Speaker, millions of everyday Americans all across the country are about to get notice that their healthcare premiums are going to skyrocket, including in the gentleman's district. Moms, dads, and grandparents, people working two jobs just to get by, are going to be at their kitchen tables, facing the awful decision of which bills to pay.

For nearly 24 million people in this country who have ACA marketplace health insurance, premiums will increase, on average, by 93 percent. A 60-year-old couple making $80,000 per year will see their premiums increase by over $17,000 per year. That is like $1,400 per month. A family of four earning $64,000 will owe an extra $2,600 in healthcare premiums every year.

Where on Earth are families supposed to find this kind of extra money, Mr. Speaker? We are talking hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. That is not extra change that you can find in your couch cushion.

It will mean 5 million people, including 2 million with chronic conditions, lose their healthcare coverage altogether.

It will mean older adults have to choose between paying their high energy bills and affording their healthcare.

It will mean families going without food because their healthcare premiums are unaffordable.

It will mean people fall behind on their rent just so they can afford basic healthcare in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world.

This is a crisis, Mr. Speaker. It is a crisis of the Republicans' own making. Instead of spending the summer working with Democrats to address this looming healthcare cliff, Republicans spent it instead slashing Medicaid by a trillion dollars, kicking 15 million people off their coverage altogether, blocking access to cancer screening and prenatal care by defunding Planned Parenthood, cutting NIH's budget, and taking food away from families with teenagers, veterans, and older adults, which will make them less healthy, all to give tax breaks to Elon Musk and Trump's billionaire friends.

Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what to say to the working families who visit my office scared to death that their healthcare costs are going to force them to go broke.

I don't know how my Republican friends can talk to people back home in their districts, regular people, hardworking people, and somehow justify what they are doing. I guess many of them don't because they don't do townhalls.

With all due respect to the Speaker of the House, no, this actually cannot wait. I understand why they are trying to minimize the crisis that they created, I really do, but hardworking people back home are counting on us, Mr. Speaker.

Congress must address this looming healthcare crisis now, including one of the most significant healthcare premium hikes in history, and the historic cuts to Medicaid that are closing hospitals and nursing homes on a daily basis, to give families peace of mind that they won't go bankrupt trying to afford their healthcare.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am losing my voice but not my passion.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is simple. Families are being crushed by high prices. Rent, groceries, gas, and healthcare are all going up.

What are Republicans doing? They are obsessed with micromanaging Washington, D.C., with not one, not two, not three, but four different bills today about Washington, D.C.

I hate to break it to Republicans, but none of the people whom I represent, and I think none of the people from the gentleman's district, live in Washington, D.C., which leads me to wonder why the hell Republicans are wasting time on this nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, the other bills that we are dealing with hand out favors to Big Coal and Big Oil. Again, there is nothing for regular families from these guys. There is nothing for average Americans. They have no vision and no plan for economic growth.

The bottom line is that healthcare premiums are about to go through the roof. People will see their healthcare bills explode because these guys refuse to act.

Republicans are putting ideology over everyday people. They are putting headlines over solutions. They are playing games instead of governing.

All of this--micromanaging D.C. and the coal commission garbage--is what the Republicans are focused on while the government teeters on the edge of a shutdown, while Trump's tariffs drive up prices, and while millions of people are about to get kicked off their health insurance.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Representative Roy for acknowledging the tremendous loss that Jim McGovern and his wife, Lisa, suffered this weekend when their daughter, Molly, was taken by cancer, a disease both of us have battled, as well.

With the Speaker's indulgence, I will read a few sentences from the McGoverns' own statement because I think this captured a lot of who Molly was:

``Molly radiated pure joy. She lit up every room with her beaming smile--full of laughter, endless warmth, and a sharp wit that could disarm you in an instant. She was unbelievably funny, fiercely loyal, and wise beyond her years. Molly had a rare gift: She made everyone feel special because she genuinely believed everyone was special. She treated people with compassion and kindness--always standing up for the underdog, and making fast friends wherever she went.''

Molly was deeply loved by Jim and Lisa, and because of that love, Molly was also loved by many of her colleagues in this House. She grew up here in Capitol Hill with other children of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have been exchanging and I have been watching these beautiful pictures of Molly growing up with those kids from when she was young to just last August at the convention.

Lisa McGovern dedicated herself to helping families deal with cancer at Prevent Cancer Foundation. Lisa knows directly what it is like to see that terrible disease impact a young and promising life and how it, therefore, impacts the entire family.

Jim has one of the biggest hearts I know. He stands up on this floor every week to ask us to end hunger now because he deeply feels the pains of hunger that too many young children in America suffer from.

Given that huge heart, my colleagues can only imagine the love he poured into Molly. We don't even have to imagine it. We all saw the love he poured into Molly. He worried about her as she sought to live a normal life, studying in Australia and traveling, but he always said ``yes'' and never missed being by her side for key appointments and scans.

We cry for the things we love, and love always comes with pain. With a love as profound and deep as what Molly had, we know the McGoverns' pain will be immeasurable.

To Lisa, Jim, and their son, Patrick, please know that your colleagues on this House floor on both sides of the aisle are in pain with you. Our tears are flowing with yours, and your congressional family stands with you in prayer and support.

Now, standing in Jim's place, I will turn to the business before us.

Representative Roy and I agree on how we opened this, but not on much more this morning because we see a different view on this 100th day that is marking Trump's service in office, 100 days of chaos, corruption, and economic sabotage. After these 100 days, House Republicans are wasting time on cynical Congressional Review Act resolutions instead of addressing the economic and constitutional crisis facing American families.

One hundred days of economic pain, as Trump's on-again, off-again temper tantrum of tariffs tank the dollar, drive up prices, destroy the markets, and threaten a recession.

One hundred days of chaos in the White House, where Secretary Hegseth texts war plans to journalists, and the administration belittles allies while embracing dictators like Putin.

One hundred days of corruption, as billionaires like Musk and DOGE take Americans' personal Social Security data and fired the employees we need to process those Social Security checks. They fired the auditors and inspectors so no one is there to sound the alarm when Musk steers contracts to his own companies. Talk about self-dealing.

One hundred days of courtroom drama, with courts--district, appellate, and even the Supreme Court--saying Trump's actions are likely illegal, unconstitutional, and must be paused to avoid irreparable harm to the American people.

While Trump defies the law and damages our economy, what are House Republicans doing? This week and into the next couple, Republicans are plotting to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans to fund tax cuts for 759 billionaires. Republicans will sacrifice healthcare for 72 million children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to give tax cuts to the 759 richest people in America.

When they destroy Medicaid, they destroy rural hospitals, and they destroy healthcare centers that everyone in the community uses, not just those on Medicaid.

Trump and Republicans want to give tax cuts to the biggest corporations, as well, so they have to cut funding from low-income college students trying to get ahead and steal food from the mouths of hungry children, and that hurts our farmers and ranchers, too. These are the hungry children that Ranking Member McGovern fights for every day.

Millions of Americans will suffer so the billionaires and the biggest corporations can get more--more power, more money, more control, and more influence in Washington, D.C.

Americans are tired of how the system is rigged against working- and middle-class families. They know the rich are winning and regular Americans don't seem to have a chance.

The Republican budget ends their reconciliation bill. Their tax cuts are going to make sure the rich always win.

Now, Trump's approval ratings are the lowest of any President in the last 80 years. In the latest poll released today, Americans give him F's. He is getting F's on the economy. He is getting F's all over the place.

Americans disapprove of Trump because he is destroying our economy, and he is betraying his promise to lower costs from day one.

Americans are demanding we put an end to Trump's tyranny. Republican voters are showing up at the few townhalls that Republicans are brave enough to have, and they are yelling at their Representatives. They are saying: Do something.

While Americans want us to have the courage to stand up to Trump, House Republicans are doing the opposite.

Hidden in the rule we are debating today is a provision that will cover up Secretary Hegseth's texting of classified war plans. Republicans won't even let Democrats ask for information about what is happening at the Department of Defense--no courage, just capitulation.

Today, instead of helping lower costs for working families, Republicans are pushing partisan bills to overturn environmental laws that protect our air and water. It is ridiculous.

Costs are going up, markets are tanked, court orders are being ignored, and we are talking about a rule that we will hear about later today that we are going to spend all of this time on the floor of this House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate. We are wasting the precious time that we have on this House floor to do something.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a resolution of inquiry--Congress wants to know. Give us some answers.

It is not that big of a deal, except that, right now, I think they just don't want to have to vote. They don't want to have to vote on Signalgate. They don't want to have to actually take up an issue that they know is controversial, and they don't have a reason to present to the American people of why to shut this inquiry down.

I will acknowledge that we also had resolutions of inquiry, and there was a reason that we explained to the world: There was a pandemic going on. People were dying. The United States Government was in an emergency, and we were trying to save lives. We were trying to make sure that people were safe, not just here but in every single State. In New Mexico, it was devastating. We were trying to deal with this worldwide pandemic.

They have not offered any explanation for shutting down resolutions of inquiry at this time. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why? Last night, we had an amendment to actually remove this, and we said: Why? Just explain to us why. They could not answer.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee were set to take up these inquiries about the Secretary of Defense using unclassified Signal chats to share sensitive information about military strikes with his family, his personal lawyer, and a journalist.

They don't want to vote on Signalgate, so they are rigging the rules to block us. They are hoping maybe this issue will pass over. Maybe we will forget about this lapse of judgment, this utter failure, this TV personality who, I guess, still wants everybody to know what he is doing, but when you are Secretary of Defense, you are not supposed to be letting everybody know what we are doing and putting our servicemembers at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member and top Democrat on our Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned the fact about a vehicle's expense. Now, let's recognize that used car prices have gone up for the first time in 30 months not because of what California has done but because of Trump's tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Used car prices just rose for the first time in 30 months. Here's why and what it could mean for consumers in 2025.''

Mr. Speaker, if they wanted to actually address the rising costs of cars, maybe they would be willing to address the tariffs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true in New Mexico, we have all that beautiful land. We have our ranchers. We have our farms. We have those mountains. We love our trucks, but the problem is, Trump's tariffs are making all of that more expensive.

He is raising the cost of trucks. Remember, there was like a $20,000 hike after one of his first attempts at tariffs before he started flip- flopping. We never know where he is at, right?

His tariffs are raising the costs of housing. In New Mexico, the firing of Federal employees and the domino effects of the economic uncertainty because of his tariffs are making jobs harder to find.

Mr. Speaker, Trump promised to lower prices on day one. Instead, his tariffs are crashing our economy, making those trucks more expensive and houses more expensive. People are out of work. Retirement accounts are destroyed.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and impose tariffs. It is Congress' duty to review whether what he is doing is accurate or not. Even though it is our review, this is another area where Republicans don't want to have the debate on this floor. They are hiding behind these things they stick in these rules.

They actually thought they stopped time. Republicans passed a rule that stops time for the purposes of voting

on whether or not we should have these tariffs. They actually passed a rule that said this: ``Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment last night. I offered an amendment last time we met in rules. We will keep offering amendments to say you can't stop time. If you believe in these tariffs, be willing to debate them, to stand up on this floor and say we think the tariffs are good, we think the tariffs are bad. Make Trump defend those tariffs.

Why is he doing this to us? Why is he creating this disaster? This is a disaster of Trump's own creation. We are seeking four Republicans to join us to stop this. They already have some Republicans over on the Senate side. We have some that might be moving here. Let's stop this craziness of the tariffs.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asks where would we get this electricity. In New Mexico as well as in Texas, we have amazing wind power and amazing solar power. There are many ways of generating electricity. The problem is that with a policy of ``drill, baby, drill,'' they don't want to look at all of the opportunities, even though Americans know that looking at energy independence means looking at all of the beautiful ways in which we can generate power in the United States.

However, a more important question that is before us is: What is happening with Medicaid and SNAP? Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which will prevent the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans are continuing full-speed ahead with their disastrous plan to cut the social safety net and blow up the deficit to give billionaires tax cuts. It is shameful. It is wrong. Under their plan, they will have to cut $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion in food assistance just to make the math work.

Mr. Speaker, what is worse is they continue to argue they are not doing that, but the math doesn't lie. They can't reach the levels of billionaire tax cuts they want without completely

gutting vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP, programs that the most vulnerable in our country rely on.

Republicans claim they won't make these cuts, so today I will give them a chance to put their money where their mouth is and vote to ensure those devastating cuts can't move forward in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this issue of the Clean Air Act and the fact that Republicans often say they believe in States' rights, but when a State like California actually chooses a policy they don't like, they throw that principle out the window.

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it gave States that had standards before 1966 the right to apply for a waiver. Congress decided that. For 50 years, California has used that waiver to clean up its air. It is not just California. Other States have chosen to adopt these standards, too.

Across America, we can breathe cleaner air. That is why our children can go out and play in the park and can run around. They don't have to stay indoors like they have to in Beijing or New Delhi or other countries that are polluted from the cars that clog their cities.

Clean air isn't just about the environment. We heard the Speaker Emerita talking about the cost, the cost to the children, but it is also about economic prosperity. When people breathe clean air, they miss fewer work and school days, companies are more productive, kids learn more, families save on healthcare costs because fewer people go to the hospital for asthma and heart disease.

It doesn't stop there. To meet California's emission standards, carmakers have built more fuel-efficient vehicles. That means we are saving money at the pump. Republicans love to talk about energy dominance, but for them, as I noted, it is just ``drill, baby, drill.'' Improving fuel efficiency is cheaper, smarter, and better for the environment and economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stop this political theater and focus on the real issues that matter to the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, after 100 days of Trump, the verdict is clear: We are living through a campaign of economic chaos, constitutional contempt, and corporate greed. The American people see what is happening, and they are not fooled by the chaos. They are not happy with the chaos. They are watching this body to see who will fight for them and who will fold to Trump.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. This administration isn't governing. It is looting. Trump's cronies are lighting the house on fire so their billionaire friends can sell the ashes for profit.

With this issue of cutting Medicaid and addressing healthcare, yes, our healthcare system is not working. We need to address some issues in Medicaid. Let's be honest. The CMS itself said that there is less than 1 percent of fraud in the system. It is an incredibly lean system. It pays out less than any other system.

Still, even with it as it is, 40 percent of pregnant women in the country rely on Medicaid so they can give birth to healthy babies. They would strip that away from those women. It is even higher in rural areas, and those hospitals in the rural areas rely on that.

With regards to prices, Trump's tariffs are raising prices. At the same time that prices are going up, they are slashing food assistance. At a food bank I went to last week, they have more people showing up and less food because Trump literally stopped the trucks from delivering the food that was in the trucks. How cruel is that?

They are wrecking our national parks, not out of necessity but to fund tax cuts for 759 of the richest people in America. They are bleeding rural hospitals, stripping students of opportunity, and polluting our air, all to line the pockets of the ultrarich.

This isn't policy. It is plunder. House Republicans won't stop it. I say we stop it by voting against this rule. Let's defeat this rule today.

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

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

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

This resolution, H.J. Res. 78, continues a very familiar pattern that we are seeing from this Republican majority: distractions and scapegoats instead of dealing with real crises, real

problems, and solutions to the challenges that are facing working families, including American farmers and rural communities all over this country.

Today, they are bringing us a resolution that tries to blame an endangered fish, the bay-delta longfin smelt, for California's water problems and shortages. They are doing that instead of addressing major problems that are actually impacting farmers in rural communities.

Let's be clear. Removing protections for the longfin smelt will not make it rain. It will not rebuild California's snowpack. It won't refill our reservoirs, not even the reservoir that President Trump recently drained in a public relations stunt that had nothing to do with fighting fires or water supply.

California's water shortage is driven by climate change and also prolonged drought, aging and outdated infrastructure, and overallocation. It is not the fault of some tiny fish.

Meanwhile, farmers, including those in my district, are grappling with worsening droughts, wildfires, floods, extreme weather, and now the fallout from President Trump's disastrous trade policies for agriculture.

All the while, Republicans won't talk about any of those things. Instead, they bring us here to debate whether a small fish should be allowed to go extinct or be protected under the Endangered Species Act. All the while, the significant damage that their policies are causing continue to pile up in rural America, including President Trump's tariffs.

Trump is treating not just our adversaries, but some of our neighbors and our best friends in the world, like they are enemies. He is turning them into adversaries. Tariffs on key trading partners have already cost farmers tens of billions of dollars in lost exports. Markets are shrinking. Input costs are soaring, making it hard for farms to stay in business.

We see the sweeping budget cuts and mass layoffs at critical agencies like NOAA and the Bureau of Reclamation, threatening the services that farmers depend on: water deliveries, weather forecasting, climate data, and much more. Farmers need that stuff. They don't want to go back to the ``Farmers' Almanac'' in order to make key business decisions.

We see hundreds of millions of dollars in water supply infrastructure projects suddenly in limbo because of DOGE, while our colleagues across the aisle say nothing.

We see the entire rural healthcare safety net, including nursing home care, including services that anyone who has a person with disabilities in their family, depend on. All of that is in limbo as we brace for catastrophic cuts from Republicans as they try to fund their tax cuts for billionaires.

If this Republican majority were serious about helping farmers and rural communities, they would be working to reverse these harmful policies. They would be standing up for rural America right now. Instead, they are wasting our time. Just because we are debating a 3- inch fish today doesn't mean we need to think like one.

Now, about the impacts of these policies that my friends don't want to talk about. You don't have to take my word for it, you can listen to farmers across America.

Here is Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association, who says: ``Our grave concern is we could permanently lose another big chunk of our export market that we are dependent on for our production. . . . And the U.S. farm economy is in a tough spot, and we just don't have any room for error right now.''

Here is Chris Harner, owner of Harner Farm in Centre County, Pennsylvania: ``We did get a letter from our one supplier that once the tariffs kick in, they will be passing on the costs.''

Paul Krueger, a corn and soybean farmer from Bladen, Nebraska, says: ``Any time our country gets involved with any sort of tariffs that affect the agriculture industry, every farmer just kind of groans about that. We're powerless to do anything except take what comes out in the wash.''

Here is Travis Johnson, who farms cotton, sorghum, and corn in Texas' Rio Grande Valley. He says: ``There's a lot of uncertainty around, and I hate to be used as a bargaining chip. I am definitely worried.''

Moving to California, here is Ryan Talley, vice president of Talley Farms in San Luis Obispo: ``We don't have months to wait something out. We have to continue our operations at the intensity that we currently farm. We're going to have to take those rising prices and deal with it the best we can.''

This is what Republican agriculture policy is doing right now: losing export markets, raising costs, telling farmers to just deal with it. They are complicit in the dismantling of rural healthcare, in the freezing of funding for rural infrastructure, in the threat to programs like SNAP that many families across rural America depend on.

It gets worse. President Trump, Elon Musk, and their enablers are gutting critical Federal services that include scientists. They are hollowing out NOAA and weakening the Bureau of Reclamation. They should listen to the people that these decisions are actually hurting.

I know I am quoting a lot right now, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make sure my colleagues across the aisle are listening, since they are not having any townhalls these days. They need to hear from farmers and the folks in these rural communities that their policies are hurting.

In response to mass firings at NOAA and the National Weather Service, Andrea Young of Hidden Creek Farm in Fauquier County, Virginia, said this: ``I cannot bring the animals to safety. I cannot cover up those tender plants. I cannot know that a rainstorm is coming and so I shouldn't water. I cannot function as a farmer in an indoor environment.''

The general manager of 14 California Central Valley Project irrigation districts, in a recent letter to the President about layoffs at the Bureau of Reclamation, said this: ``That elimination of Reclamation staff will not further the goal of achieving significant cost savings to the American people.''

In other words, they are harming the agency that these irrigators depend on, and they are not even saving money for the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the damage from all of this is real. There are real farmers, real communities, and this is real harm caused by failed leadership. While all that is happening, we are here debating whether to strip protections from an endangered fish. They are turning a small fish into a very large scapegoat, pretending it will somehow provide real support to farmers.

The truth is, the listing of the bay-delta longfin under the ESA is both scientifically and legally sound. The longfin population has declined over 99 percent since the 1980s. Think about that. In just a few decades, only about 1 percent of the population is left. That is like the number of environmentalists left in the Republican Party these days.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service followed the law, the data, and the science, just as a bipartisan Congress intended when they passed the ESA back in the 1970s, just as Republican President Richard Nixon intended when he signed it into law. The system is supposed to work that way.

Protecting species like the longfin is not just about a single fish, but it is about protecting the ecological health of the entire bay- delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. This delta is the heart of California's water system. Its health underpins clean drinking water for millions, healthy soil for agriculture, and waterfowl populations that hunters depend on.

It is so important, and it requires a broad ecological balance to sustain the farms, fisheries, entire ecosystems, and so many communities and millions of people that depend on it. You can't destroy an ecosystem and expect farms, cities, and wildlife to just thrive. These things rise or fall together.

This resolution takes us in the wrong direction. Let's actually do something real for farmers instead of deflecting and debating distractions. Let's repeal the mindless tariffs on our allies and top trading partners. Let's protect the Bureau of Reclamation and NOAA from these disastrous sabotage cuts. Let's protect rural families and communities by opposing cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution that merely distracts and deflects and scapegoats instead of solving the pressing challenges facing farmers and the rest of rural America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the question has been posed about whether this ESA listing of the longfin smelt is supported by science. I guess this Congress, in all of its infinite mastery of science, has decided to superimpose itself over the scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service who went through a very public and deliberative process to reach this determination. We are going to now get, I guess, a different scientific interpretation from the great minds across the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, the first Trump administration, back when there was still at least a few people around who followed the law and told the truth, agreed that the longfin smelt was a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans slow walked that listing because of politics. That is why the administration was sued. That is why the Biden administration had to comply with the law and follow through with that science-based process. That is how we got a listing.

Let's not pretend that there is no scientific foundation for this listing. Even my friends across the aisle know better than that.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the Sacramento Valley has suggested that we live in parallel universes. If that is the case, I will choose the universe where Members of Congress face their constituents and answer hard questions instead of running off to Mar-a-Lago or other people's districts or having distractions about fish in the delta and scapegoating them as the cause for all of our problems.

Answer some hard questions from constituents. Talk about facts and reality of California water instead of all of this scapegoating.

With California water, it is always a challenge not to break the fact-check machine across the aisle. It has been suggested that all of this water is wasted out to the ocean for fish, and you have to explain again how the delta system works. That water that flows out to the ocean, almost all of it, the vast majority of it, is for one reason: to make sure that the saltwater in the Pacific Ocean does not intrude far enough into the estuary that the whole system that tens of millions of Californians depend on and that all the farmers in my friend's district depend on doesn't salt up and cease to function.

The Speaker doesn't have to believe me about it or choose between two parallel universes. Ask any California water manager how this works. This is basic stuff, but we have to explain it over and over again because of the fog of political theater that we always hear across the aisle.

It is a little bit like the President of the United States right now who says that there is a magic spigot in the northwest and in Canada that, if we could get past all of the radical environmentalists and just open up this spigot, unlimited water would flow to southern California, and they would always be able to fight fires.

It is absolute nonsense. Then he pretended to open a magic spigot, and he dumped and wasted a bunch of water a couple of months ago into a dry lakebed.

Our friends across the aisle retweeted all of these totally fake narratives, and now half the world, the world in that other parallel universe, believes this stuff.

It is a constant challenge just to bring the subject back to facts and reality. Talk to water managers. Do a little bit of basic research. This is how the California water system, especially the delta estuary, actually works. Politics is a poor substitute for understanding basic hydrology and facts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a colleague who actually represents the amazing delta region of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, President Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE continue dismantling Federal agencies, shredding constitutional norms. Meanwhile, House Republicans refuse to lift a finger to rein in rogue actors or defend the rule of law.

In the face of all of this, American farmers and rural America are paying the price for all of this chaos.

Right now, the real threats to rural America and to water security and the livelihoods of America's farmers are trade wars that are hammering agricultural exports. It is not this endangered fish.

They face a shrinking Federal workforce hollowed out. The very agencies responsible for permitting and delivering water to farmers and communities are being dismantled.

Congressional Republicans are threatening to rescind critical Inflation Reduction Act investments in drought resilience and water delivery.

We also are facing this administration's efforts to block and cancel key funding that Congress has already approved to support drought resilience and repair vital water infrastructure, support that rural America needs right now in the face of extreme heat and weather from the climate crisis and the burning of fossil fuels.

These are the urgent challenges that farmers and communities are actually facing. Instead of confronting them, House Republican leadership devoted this entire week to voting on performative Congressional Review Act resolutions that are meant to deflect and distract from the real problems created by this administration and the complicity of this Congress.

Passing a rule to actually abdicate Congress' own oversight powers when it comes to our Article I trade authority all the way through the rest of this fiscal year is shameful.

Let's be honest. The longfin smelt didn't cause California's water challenges. This resolution won't solve them. It won't improve drought conditions. It won't help farmers one bit.

Yet, here we are, debating a symbolic resolution that is designed to distract, deflect, and scapegoat rather than talking about and trying to solve real problems affecting farmers and rural communities.

This isn't legislating. It is grievance politics.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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