Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today due to an important personal matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 219 and YEA on Roll Call No. 220.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to President Trump's reckless and destructive rescissions bill.

The proposed $8 billion cut to global aid programs is not only a shortsighted betrayal of American leadership, but it is going to result in millions of people getting sick and losing their lives.

If we continue to retreat from helping countries around the world as this administration is doing, our adversaries like China will fill the vacuum. That makes us less powerful and less safe.

It is not just lives at risk abroad. Lives here will be lost, too. By defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, millions of Americans will no longer have access to our national emergency weather alert system. Simply put: Americans will die because of these cuts.

In addition to gutting one of the last vestiges of independent journalism, which is only biased if you think the truth is biased, the Republicans are also defunding free children's educational programs enjoyed by millions around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 183 and NAY on Roll Call No. 184.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on my amendment to President Trump's reckless and stunningly shortsighted rescissions package, which would, among other harmful cuts, entirely eliminate Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear. This is not cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. This isn't trimming around the edges. This isn't the teardrop in an ocean. This is all Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is PBS, NPR, and local public television and radio.

This is not just an attack, though, on PBS and NPR, as so many of my Republican colleagues have said. The majority knows full well that more than 70 percent of this cut will be felt by the local radio and television stations in their own communities and across the country.

These stations use federally funded CPB radio towers and infrastructure to disseminate lifesaving emergency alerts. They don't just inform rural Americans and serve news deserts to discuss local news, which, of course, they do, and they are often the only source of educational programming for children around the country, but they are also essential for disaster response and emergency preparedness.

There are 20 States that list NPR in their emergency response plans. This infrastructure is essential for emergency alerts, geotargeted text messages, and first responder communications. My colleagues know all of this. The Republicans know how devastating this defunding will be.

Even Chairman Aderholt acknowledged yesterday in the Committee on Rules that these cuts will harm his State's public broadcasting networks and that he would like to work on it with Democrats. The gentleman's chance is right now, on the previous question, which, if my colleagues vote ``no,'' we can work together on funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about actual funding. This is caving to Donald Trump's thin skin and his inability to deal with facts rather than to stand up for local stations, local communities, and the First Amendment, which specifically prevents Congress from abridging the freedom of the press.

To every Republican listening, this is yet another chance to oppose Donald Trump's attack on any objective form of accountability and to do what is best for your constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to choose their constituents over Donald Trump.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) for introducing this resolution that gets right to the heart of a scary rise of violence against Jewish Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the rise in anti-Semitism since the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas has been jarring, unsettling, and incredibly scary for the Jewish community.

In the last 2 months, there have been three incidents of outright violence: the arson at Governor Shapiro's home on Passover; the murder in front of the Capital Jewish Museum of two Israeli Embassy workers, young Jews just about to get engaged and begin their lives together, murdered solely because they were Jewish; and, last weekend, a horrific attack with Molotov cocktails on a peacefully marching group bringing attention to the fact that 56 hostages remain in horrific conditions in captivity of a terrorist group in Gaza.

Mr. Van Drew's resolution accurately recounts these facts, accurately cites and refers to the anti-Semitism that has risen in America, and boldly condemns it, as we all should, because hate of any kind has no place in this country.

The numbers are startling. In the Anti-Defamation League's audit of 2024, there were a record 9,354 recorded anti-Semitic incidents, 1,700 of which targeted Jewish institutions. This is the highest number ever recorded in the 46 years of this audit.

Mr. Speaker, as the co-chair of the congressional Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism here in the House of Representatives, I applaud Mr. Van Drew and join with him in condemning these attacks and bringing light to what is a new phase of anti-Semitism in this country, one that is incredibly scary that includes violence and murder.

All that being said, I note that my Republican colleagues introduced an appropriations bill today that proposes $305 million for the nonprofit security grants, which is the program that provides security funding to all nonprofit organizations in the United States that apply and are granted them. That includes Jewish houses of worship, Jewish organizations, and Jewish community institutions.

I joined 132 of my colleagues to demand that we increase last year's funding of over $400 million because, with this new violence, the need for security for every single Jewish institution has skyrocketed.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the Republican majority has introduced a bill that would fund only $305 million, which is the same amount as fiscal year 2023--before October 7, before this sudden and dramatic rise in anti-Semitism, and before the recent violence against Jewish people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from New Jersey and my Republican colleagues to please reconsider. If my colleagues believe this resolution, as I know they do, then let's literally put our money where our mouth is because Jewish institutions need our help to be secure, and $305 million is not going to cut it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just add in response to my friend that this is a majority proposal for the appropriations bill. If the majority does not like other spending measures, it can propose to cut them, but Jews and Jewish institutions should not suffer because of other priorities of the Republican majority and their appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I do want to reemphasize how important it is that Mr. Van Drew has worked collaboratively with our side of the aisle on a bipartisan resolution that is not a ``gotcha'' resolution but accurately addresses the serious problems that we are facing and condemns them without making an effort to score political points.

This is how bipartisan efforts to combat anti-Semitism should work. Mr. Van Drew has demonstrated that he certainly is willing to do that and we are certainly grateful that he worked closely across the aisle to make sure that this is not a partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker, as an American Jew, as a Member of Congress, if anti- Semitism is used as a partisan weapon, if Israel is used as a partisan weapon, it is bad for Jews and it is bad for Israel.

I urge my other Republican colleagues to follow in Mr. Van Drew's footsteps here because if they do care about Jews and they do care about Israel, then neither should be used as a partisan weapon in a political game.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Van Drew for leading that effort, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), the Representative from Boulder.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for such moving and important remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado would indulge a quick question before he leaves.

Yesterday, there was a rally with thousands of people in Boulder, Colorado, commemorating the victims and celebrating Jewish culture and people. The two Senators from Colorado were there. Mr. Neguse was there. I would just ask if the gentleman who is introducing this resolution to commemorate, ostensibly, the victims of Boulder was in his neighboring district to be with the victims and the community.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans) to respond to the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for answering.

According to reporting this morning, the other previous obligation that the gentleman from Colorado had was to appear at a political campaign conference of the Speaker here in Washington, D.C., with three other Members who flipped districts.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was essential for the gentleman from Colorado to be the fourth Republican Member to have flipped a district last time to speak with donors in Washington, D.C., so that he could not return to Boulder, Colorado, to commemorate the victims who were the subject of this resolution that he so misguidedly introduced because this resolution is the exact opposite of Mr. Van Drew's resolution.

This resolution uses anti-Semitism, uses Jews, for a political objective. This was an anti-Semitic attack. The victims were Jewish. One victim was a Holocaust survivor. There is no question that the motivation of the perpetrator was anti-Semitism. It has nothing to do with how he got into this country.

If you want to have an immigration enforcement conversation, let's have an immigration enforcement conversation because this has nothing to do with that.

For the gentleman from Colorado to break precedent in the House of Representatives to prevent the Member representing the victims of this horrific attack from leading a resolution representing the families, I hope it is simply because he has been here for only 6 months and does not understand the traditions of this institution.

It would be a shame if this is where this institution has gone, if the partisanship has gotten so deep, so raw, and so uncontrollable that we can't follow the custom of having the victims' Representative introduce a resolution condemning such a horrific attack like this.

On top of that, to use this for some bogus immigration argument where he falsely characterizes Colorado as a sanctuary State and falsely represents that there were law enforcement contacts with the perpetrator when the only information we have is that there were some 911 hang-ups that traced back to an address where the perpetrator was living, to argue that somehow this is a reflection of our immigration system uses Jews as a partisan pawn.

It is the exact opposite of what we Jews in this country need. I get that we are in a political body. I get that they like to put these resolutions--Mr. Evans wasn't here last term, but there were about 10 anti-Semitism resolutions that effectively said the same thing, solely to score political points.

We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns. Anti-Semitism is rising to such a degree that people are now being murdered because they are Jewish. We are not just talking about protests on campus anymore. Every single Jewish institution has to significantly increase security. We all have to worry when we go into a synagogue whether we will be the next victim.

Here we are, dealing with this resolution, trying to convert anti- Semitism

and anti-Semitic violence into some immigration gotcha game.

What are we thanking ICE agents for in a resolution commemorating and condemning anti-Semitism and remembering and honoring the victims when there were no ICE agents there? ICE has nothing to do with it. It is because ICE is spending so much time pulling nonviolent, noncriminal immigrants out of court, where they are going through a lawful process to come in here, so that they can be removed in expedited removal; so that they can have their asylum claims, a lawful pathway, voided; and so they can be kicked out of the country with minimal due process just so Republicans and President Trump can meet their quota of mass deportations.

Mr. Speaker, we were promised they were going to go after convicted criminals. These people are not convicted criminals.

This resolution says that there is cooperation between State, local, and Federal law enforcement. Really? As far as I know, the President of the United States ordered the National Guard to go into California over the objection of the Governor of California, something that has not happened since 1965. In 1965, it happened because the Governor of the State was not following Federal law.

Is that the kind of cooperation that we are looking for here?

This resolution should be pulled immediately.

Mr. Van Drew and Mr. Neguse have offered resolutions that properly honor the victims, condemn anti-Semitism, and give the American people the sense of Congress that we, as a unified body, will not tolerate anti-Semitic violence. Instead, we are voting on an immigration gotcha resolution that uses anti-Semitism as a political pawn.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues on the other side to come to your senses. Stop using anti-Semitism as a partisan weapon. Pull this resolution. Allow Mr. Neguse's resolution to be introduced and voted on, as is the tradition of this body, in parallel along with Mr. Van Drew's, which accurately reflects the threat not just in Boulder, Colorado, but in Washington, D.C., in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and all around the country.

We still can do the right thing. It is still possible, and I am certain the American people would greatly appreciate seeing some bipartisanship out of this body on a topic that is so important to so many.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 156 of the 119th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 132 of the 119th Congress and YEA on Roll Call No. 133 of the 119th Congress.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Johnson, for organizing this incredibly important Special Order hour to highlight the absolutely unprecedented and devastating attacks on our democracy and on the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound the alarm that our democratic values and the rule of law are under attack. We all must open our eyes before we find ourselves in Vladimir Putin's Russia. In just 100 days, President Trump has engaged in a coordinated, premeditated, deliberate attempt to dismantle our government.

Let's be very clear: Donald Trump does not seek to lead us. He seeks to rule us, and we all must open our eyes. Since he first came into office, President Trump has persistently attacked the media to undermine the credibility of the messenger of news that he didn't like.

Then, during Special Counsel Mueller's investigation on Russia's interference in the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump's campaign, President Trump attacked the FBI relentlessly, trying to undermine its credibility.

Rather than debate the facts or the evidence, which he knows he would lose, isn't it just a lot easier to simply shoot the messenger and claim that everything bad about you is just fake news?

Mr. Speaker, while many, rightly, have been focusing on the arbitrary and devastating cuts to essential Federal programs or the disastrous and reckless tariffs that have increased prices and inflation and have tanked the economy, President Trump's first 100 days have also escalated this relentless assault on the checks and balances that have been the foundation of our great Nation.

On day one, he pardoned more than 1,500 criminals who stormed this very building on January 6. Hundreds of them were convicted of violently assaulting law enforcement officers. It was a blatant and disgusting disregard for the rule of law and for our fine men and women in uniform.

Next, during his first week, he fired nearly 20 inspectors general, the independent watchdogs in the executive branch agencies. It is their responsibility to ensure that those agencies follow the law.

Then he went after the Department of Justice and the FBI. He fired prosecutors and special agents who investigated his criminal conduct. They simply did their job. He then turned to the Public Integrity Section, the renowned and venerable institution that was created after Watergate to be an independent investigative body of public officials.

He and his administration have also been firing and forcing out anyone who might not share his political views, even though these jobs are career, nonpartisan, and apolitical jobs.

Next, he went after lawyers and law firms who tried to hold him accountable to the law. He continues to do so. He has signed several executive orders, trying to limit the ability of law firms to represent their clients, one of the fundamental hallmarks of our system of law.

He has gone after universities. These institutions form the bedrock foundation of the growth and innovation of our great country and underpin and form the foundation for the best global economy in the world. He is now threatening to withhold billions of dollars in Federal funding unless universities change their curriculum, change their admissions process, change their hiring process, and change other core parts of their mission that they, as educational institutions, decide in this democracy.

He is also waging a war against nonprofit organizations, yanking grants away that have already been made and allocated. He is threatening to remove the tax-exempt status of any organization that may disagree with his opinions or support lawsuits that might actually enforce existing laws.

Mr. Speaker, you see where this is going. The media, the FBI, inspectors general, the Department of Justice, law firms, universities, and nonprofit organizations are all institutions that enforce our laws and that hold those in power accountable. This is his methodical way of undermining all forms of accountability in this government.

More recently, his attack on our Constitution has escalated. Before he even came into office in January, President Trump had completely submitted the Republican Conference of this body. They have abdicated their constitutional duty to be a check and balance on the executive branch.

The judiciary, the third branch of government, still remains in his way. How does he deal with the judiciary? He is openly and brazenly criticizing

and attacking judicial rulings that he doesn't like--including a number issued by Republican-appointed judges, including his own--and is openly defying court orders including Supreme Court orders.

The President and some of my Republican colleagues are threatening judges. They are trying to bully them into ruling in their favor and not ruling based on their interpretation of the law.

With the career folks removed from our executive branch agencies, he has put political lackeys in charge of our criminal justice system and our national security apparatus. He is ordering criminal investigations into individuals simply because they disagree with him.

That is the type of corruption that our country travels the world to root out. At its core, it is as antidemocratic as it gets. It is the stuff of dictators and strongmen and not of democracies.

Even worse, he is attacking our basic and fundamental right of due process. That is the right to have any allegation presented before a neutral arbiter who makes a final decision.

Like a king, Donald Trump thinks it is okay for him to get to decide what the law is. That is not how our system works. The Supreme Court and our judiciary decide what the law is. When a unanimous Supreme Court rules that he is not a king and that he must abide by our basic principles of due process, he then refuses.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, even though he had an order on him that would prohibit him from going to El Salvador. Donald Trump admits the mistake and refuses to bring him back to face due process.

Due process is the cornerstone of our country. It distinguishes us from an authoritarian dictatorship, and Donald Trump wants to destroy it. It is not optional, and court rulings are not simply suggestions. They are the backbone of American democracy. They are our final safeguard against the unchecked power of the executive.

When a President ignores the courts, he is not challenging policy. He is declaring war on the Constitution itself. Despite this laundry list of attacks on trying to undermine our democracy and our rule of law, my Republican colleagues remain absolutely silent and, in some cases, even supportive.

These alarm bells are deafening, but too many in this Chamber would rather enable Donald Trump's descent into dictatorship than to confront him. They have laid down the power of the purse, and now they are actively trying to forfeit their oversight authority.

They are silent as President Trump wages an all-out assault on our constitutional democracy. They are silent as he goes after the media, launches investigations into his political adversaries, and attacks our basic fundamental rights.

This is what dictators like Vladimir Putin do. They use repression, retaliation, and the threat of violence to consolidate their own power, while doling out billions of dollars to other oligarchs who will support them.

Many countries have faced moments like this before, moments where the freedom and the openness of the democracy that they represent stand at a crossroads. I urge my Republican colleagues to please stand up for our Constitution. Stand up for our democracy. None of us want authoritarianism. We don't want a dictator.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time where the rubber meets the road, and my friends across the aisle will make their record for history.

Do they want a dictator or do they want a democracy?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, which is simply an attempt by House Republicans to intimidate judges who issue rulings that they simply don't like.

My colleagues concede that it is the Supreme Court which determines what the law is. Well, in today's modern age, how do you get to the Supreme Court? You go first to the district court, then through the appeals court, and then up to the Supreme Court.

Now, there are many complaints that that takes too long. I agree, but we are citing rulings on the other side of the aisle of Supreme Court rulings on these very nationwide injunctions within a few weeks.

Even former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Republican star witness at our committee hearing last week on this topic, conceded that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in some cases. That is why this bill is not about the substance. It is clear that the House Republicans have completely abdicated their own constitutional duty to be a check and balance on the President.

The only remaining check that is left in our separation of powers is the courts, but it is not enough for my colleagues to hand over all of their own authority to the President; they want to hand over the judiciary branch's authority, too.

A fundamental principle of our Constitution is that the courts decide what the law is, not Congress and not the President, even if he is elected, which I would note for our friends down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is true for every single President.

My colleagues complain about the high number of nationwide injunctions during the first 3 months of this Presidency. Rather than blame the judges for that, I have an idea: Stop breaking the law. This is a bad bill that gets us nowhere other than toward autocracy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that my commonsense amendment to the DETERRENT Act was rejected yesterday in the Rules Committee by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

My amendment would have distinguished between benign donations from friendly democratic countries and donations from potential adversarial, undemocratic states.

My amendment would enact strict oversight on funding from regimes seeking to manipulate students on university campuses and to spread hate, particularly anti-Semitism, on those campuses for their own agendas.

My amendment would have significantly expanded the list of countries whose donations the universities would be required to disclose, including a number of countries not included in the DETERRENT Act that have given

billions and billions of dollars to universities in recent years.

More importantly, my amendment would also require that universities disclose the detailed terms and conditions that they agreed to in return for the foreign donation from this expanded list of countries, critically revealing whether those foreign donations come with strings attached that can foment antidemocratic influences on campuses.

Instead, this bill hampers universities' abilities to engage in important educational programming in conjunction with our democratic allies while failing to confront the real problem of antidemocratic and anti-Semitic foreign influence.

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we could not work in a bipartisan way to make this bill better and to address the root issue that both sides of the aisle are trying to address, which is the potential nefarious foreign influence on college campuses from a list of countries far greater than the four countries of concern outlined in the DETERRENT Act.

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 72 and YEA on Roll Call No. 73.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republicans' partisan sham of a government funding bill which is nothing more than a blank canvas for Donald Trump and Elon Musk to continue their smashing and looting of our Federal Government.

There are too many things that are wrong with this bill to mention in just 2 minutes, including cuts to safety net programs for housing, food, veterans, and law enforcement, as well as essential community projects for every district in the country. What is really shocking is that Republicans rejected any and all input from Democrats, even though they need Democratic votes to pass this bill in the Senate.

If the Republicans want to go it alone, then go it alone, but they can't blame anyone but themselves when it fails.

If the government shuts down with a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President, then it will be solely because the Republicans have moved forward with a terrible and partisan, take-it- or-leave-it bill.

In November, the clear number one issue on voters' minds was the economy and the cost of living. However, since he has taken over, President Trump has increased costs significantly and tanked the economy.

It gets even worse. The President has not only failed to keep his promise to help working Americans, but he has enlisted a corrupt, unelected billionaire to slash essential programs that hundreds of millions of Americans depend on.

Elon Musk isn't cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. He doesn't even know what he is cutting.

Unlike regular appropriations bills, this bill does not include the usual language to fund specific programs. What that means is that Elon Musk has unfettered discretion to cut whatever he wants.

You don't need to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. The House Freedom Caucus issued a press release supporting this bill because of that very reality.

With this bill, Republicans are handing the power of the purse to Congress and not working with Democrats. We continue to stand ready to work together, but this bill does not do that.

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 63; YEA on Roll Call No. 64; and YEA on Roll Call No. 65.

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes because of an important family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 34, and NAY on Roll Call No. 35.

personal explanation